J. Walker v. State ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                            04/11/2023
    DA 22-0626
    Case Number: DA 22-0626
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
    
    2023 MT 66N
    JAMES WILLIAM WALKER,
    Petitioner and Appellant,
    v.
    STATE OF MONTANA,
    Respondent and Appellee.
    APPEAL FROM:          District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District,
    In and For the County of Gallatin, Cause No. DC-15-333C
    Honorable John C. Brown, Presiding Judge
    COUNSEL OF RECORD:
    For Appellant:
    James William Walker, Self-Represented, Deer Lodge, Montana
    For Appellee:
    Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General Katie F. Schulz,
    Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
    Audrey Cromwell, Gallatin County Attorney, Afton M. Jessop,
    Deputy County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana
    Submitted on Briefs: March 8, 2023
    Decided: April 11, 2023
    Filed:
    ir--6--if
    __________________________________________
    Clerk
    Chief Justice Mike McGrath 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       James William Walker (Walker) appeals from an Order Dismissing Request for
    Postconviction Relief issued by the Eighteenth Judicial District Court on October 25, 2022.
    We affirm.
    ¶3       On March 8, 2016, a jury found Walker guilty of Aggravated Assault, in violation
    of § 45-5-202, MCA, following a two-day trial. On July 20, 2017, the District Court
    sentenced Walker to a commitment of twenty years in Montana State Prison. Walker did
    not directly appeal his conviction.
    ¶4       On January 29, 2020, Walker applied for Review of Sentence.1 On May 20, 2020,
    the Sentence Review Division dismissed his application as untimely.
    ¶5       On June 23, 2022, Walker filed a Motion in the Nature of Writ Error Coram Nobis
    Including Brief (Motion) in the District Court. He alleged “structural” errors including
    prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Walker asserted
    that these allegations constituted “new evidence of error.”
    1
    Walker applied for Review of Sentence on August 2, 2017, but withdrew that request.
    2
    ¶6     On October 25, 2022, the District Court issued an Order Dismissing Request for
    Postconviction Relief. The court considered the Motion as a petition for postconviction
    relief, pursuant to § 46-21-102, MCA. Petitions for postconviction relief must be filed
    within a year of the date a conviction becomes final. Walker’s petition was filed nearly
    four years after his conviction was made final. The court consequently denied his petition
    as untimely.
    ¶7     The District Court did not find cause pursuant to the exceptions under
    § 46-21-102(2), MCA, to exempt Walker’s petition from the statutory deadline.
    ¶8     We review a district court’s denial of postconviction relief to determine if the court’s
    findings of fact are clearly erroneous, and if its conclusions of law are correct. Kenfield v.
    State, 
    2016 MT 197
    , ¶ 7, 
    384 Mont. 322
    , 
    377 P.3d 1207
    .
    ¶9     A writ of coram nobis is not available as a remedy for postconviction relief. State
    v. Barrack, 
    267 Mont. 154
    , 159, 
    882 P.2d 1028
    , 1031 (1994). The writ of coram nobis was
    incorporated into § 46-21-101(1), MCA, which details petitions for postconviction relief,
    in 1997. 1997 Mont. Laws ch. 378, § 3. This Court abolished the writ of coram nobis,
    effective October 1, 2011, upon revising the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure.
    ¶10    The District Court conducted a thorough analysis of the applicable laws and
    correctly concluded that Walker’s petition was time-barred.
    ¶11    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.
    3
    ¶12   Affirmed.
    /S/ MIKE McGRATH
    We Concur:
    /S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
    /S/ BETH BAKER
    /S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON
    /S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: DA 22-0626

Filed Date: 4/11/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/11/2023