Chilinski v. State , 2017 MT 137N ( 2017 )

06/06/2017
DA 16-0676
Case Number: DA 16-0676
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2017 MT 137N
MIKE CHILINSKI,
Petitioner and Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MONTANA,
Respondent and Appellee.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fifth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Jefferson, Cause No. DV 2016-24
Honorable Loren Tucker, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Mike Chilinski (Self-Represented), Helena, Montana
For Appellee:
Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Katie F. Schulz, Assistant
Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Steven C. Haddon, Jefferson County Attorney, Boulder, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: May 10, 2017
Decided: June 6, 2017
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Michael E Wheat delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating
Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not
serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this
Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana
Reports.
¶2 Mike Chilinski (Chilinski) appeals from the September 14, 2016 order of the Fifth
Judicial District Court, Jefferson County, denying his petition for postconviction relief
(PCR). In October 2012, a jury convicted Chilinski of 91 counts of animal cruelty and the
District Court sentenced him to the Department of Corrections for 30 years with 25 years
suspended. Chilinski filed an appeal with the Montana Supreme Court and, on August 5,
2014, this Court affirmed his conviction in State v. Chilinski, 2014 MT 206, 376 Mont.
122, 330 P.3d 1169.1
¶3 On March 8, 2016, Chilinski filed a PCR petition with the District Court, alleging
errors including ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) and error in the prosecution’s
failure to disclose material evidence. On September 14, 2016, the court dismissed the
petition, finding that his claim was barred under § 46-21-105(2), MCA, and further
concluding that his IAC claim substantively failed under the two-part test set forth in
1
In that appeal, Chilinski raised three issues: 1) whether the District Court erred in denying
Chilinski’s motion to suppress; 2) whether the District Court abused its discretion in limiting
evidence to the time period of the charged offenses; and 3) whether the District Court abused its
discretion in ordering the forfeiture of all of Chilinski’s dogs. Chilinski, ¶¶ 3-5.
2
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984). Chilinski now appeals
the District Court’s denial of his PCR petition.
¶4 We review a district court’s denial of a PCR petition to determine if the court’s
findings of fact are clearly erroneous and if its conclusions of law are correct. McGarvey
v. State, 2014 MT 189, ¶ 14, 375 Mont. 495, 329 P.3d 576. We review de novo a district
court’s interpretation and application of a statute. Dick Irvin, Inc. v. State, 2013 MT 272,
¶ 18, 372 Mont. 58, 310 P.3d 524.
¶5 Section 46-21-105(2)-(3), MCA, provides, in relevant part:
(2) When a petitioner has been afforded the opportunity for a direct
appeal of the petitioner’s conviction, grounds for relief that were or could
reasonably have been raised on direct appeal may not be raised, considered,
or decided in a proceeding brought under this chapter. Ineffectiveness or
incompetence of counsel in proceedings on an original or an amended
original petition under this part may not be raised in a second or subsequent
petition under this part.
(3) For purposes of this section, “grounds for relief” includes all legal
and factual issues that were or could have been raised in support of the
petitioner's claim for relief.
¶6 In this case, Chilinski was afforded the opportunity for a direct appeal and
previously raised three alleged errors in this Court, based on the same trial record he relies
upon here. The trial record does not provide any new legal or factual issues that could not
have been reasonably discovered and raised in the petitioner’s direct appeal. As such, we
conclude that the District Court did not err in finding that Chilinski’s claims for relief are
based on asserted error that was evident on the trial record and thus could and should have
been raised on direct appeal. Furthermore, while Chilinski asks us in his reply brief to
3
exercise plain error review in this case, he does not allege any newly discovered,
exculpatory evidence to warrant such review.
¶7 As for Chilinski’s IAC claims, it is apparent from the District Court’s order that the
court carefully reviewed and analyzed his claims under the relevant law, and reached
legally supported conclusions. Consequently, the court did not err in denying Chilinski’s
PCR petition on IAC grounds. Having reviewed the issues, the District Court’s order, and
Chilinski’s arguments on appeal, we affirm the District Court’s denial of his petition.
¶8 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our
Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion of the
Court, the case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear application of
applicable standards of review. The District Court’s interpretation and application of the
law was correct.
¶9 Affirmed.
/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
We Concur:
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR
4