Parrish v. State

No. DA 06-0166
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2006 MT 315N
_____________________________________
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
GEORGE WILLIAM PARRISH,
Defendant and Appellant.
_____________________________________
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District,
In and for the County of Flathead, Cause No. DV-05-778(A),
The Honorable Ted O. Lympus, Presiding Judge.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
George William Parrish (pro se), Deer Lodge, Montana
For Respondent:
Hon. Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Mark W. Mattioli, Assistant
Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Ed Corrigan, Flathead County Attorney; Daniel M. Guzynski, Deputy
County Attorney, Kalispell, Montana
_____________________________________
Submitted on Briefs: October 18, 2006
Decided: December 5, 2006
Filed:
____________________________________________
Clerk
Chief Justice Karla M. Gray delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be
cited as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme
Court and its case title, Supreme Court 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 A jury in the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, convicted George
William Parrish of two counts of sexual intercourse without consent and two counts of
sexual assault. We affirmed the convictions on direct appeal. See State v. Parrish, 2005
MT 112, 327 Mont. 88, 111 P.3d 671. Here, Parrish appeals the District Court’s denial of
his petition for postconviction relief. We affirm.
¶3 Parrish, who appears pro se, lists seven issues in his brief on appeal.
¶4 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section 1, Paragraph 3(d) of
our 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, which provides for
memorandum opinions. The issues Parrish raises on appeal are clearly controlled by
settled Montana law. The issues concerning two of his claims--that his trial counsel was
ineffective for failing to timely pursue a Batson challenge and that the trial judge should
have independently held a Batson hearing--were or could have been raised on direct
appeal and, as a result, may not be raised in a petition for postconviction relief. See Ford
v. State, 2005 MT 151, ¶ 14, 327 Mont. 378, ¶ 14, 114 P.3d 244, ¶ 14 (citation omitted).
2
Parrish’s remaining claims are barred because he did not support them with appropriate
facts and legal authority as required by § 46-21-104(1)(c) and (2), MCA.
¶5 Affirmed.
/S/ KARLA M. GRAY
We Concur:
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
/S/ JIM RICE
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
3