State v. J. Woods ( 2020 )

tf
t 11/10/2020
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Case Number: DA 20-0264
DA 20-0264
STATE OF MONTANA,
FtLED
NOV 1 0 2020
Plaintiff and Appellee,
Bowen Greenwood
Clerk of Suprerne Court
State of Montana
v.
ORDER
JEREMY CORD WOODS,
Defendant and Appellant.
On September 22, 2020, this Court dismissed with prejudice self-represented
Appellant Jeremy Cord Woods's appeal under res judicata because we had dismissed an
appeal for the same underlying criminal matter the year before. We pointed out that Woods
had since discharged his 1994 convictions for three felonies, that his appeal was not timely,
and that his substantial rights were not affected by the Lewis and Clark District Court's
Amended Judgment and Commitrnent \\ hen it removed the condition for payment of
restitution. We noted that Woods is also serving two life sentences for deliberate homicide.
Woods has since filed a Petition for Rehearing contending that he is owed "tens of
thousands of dollars in personal property" because his assets were seized and sold under
the forfeiture statute at the time.
Upon review, Woods has not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances to
warrant rehearing. M. R. App. P. 20(1)(d). He cannot surmount the bar of res judicaw.
and he is precluded from relitigating issues this Court has decided.
We observe that Woods's forfeiture proceedings occurred in 1996. This Court
declined to address Woods's arguments before about the total restitution of $35,823.49
because Woods failed to raise thern in a timely appeal ofhis 1994 convictions and sentence.
State v. Woods, 286 Mont. 355, 359, 951 P.2d 981, 984 (1997). We considered the
forfeiture proceedin2,s and destruction of evidence in the companion civil proceeding,
. affirrning the District Court's determinations. Woods, 286 Mont. at 357-363, 951 P.2d at
983-986.
Even though his restitution condition was removed recently, this amendment does
not operate retroactively to reimburse Woods's prior seizure of assets. Nothing in this
Court's Orders or the District Court's Amended Judgment and Commitment offer such a
windfall to Woods, and he cannot demonstrate that he is owed such a financial disposition
either. The forfeiture proceeding was to compensate the various victims and businesses,
and removal of a restitution condition now does not entitle Woods to any compensation.
The doctrine of res judicata once again precludes such arguments. Woods, 286 Mont. at
361-362, 951 P.2d at 985-986. Woods cannot resurrect those arguments regardless of the
court's 2019 Amended Judgment and Commitment. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that Woods's Petition for Rehearing is DENIED.
The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to
Jeremy Cord Woods personally.
DATED this )6 -day of November, 2020.
e
oSki.'as
Justices