Title: APPLICATION OF CRIST v BOYD DIST

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 13219 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T OF THE STATE O F M O N T A N A I N T H E M A T T E R O F T H E APPTdICATION O F ROGER W. CRIST, WARDEN, M O N T A N A STATE PRISON, F O R AN P.PPROPRIATE WRIT, P e t i t i o n e r , -vs - H O N O R A B L E ROBERT J. BOYD, DISTRICT JUDGE, T H E DISTRICT C O U R T O F T H E THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT, I N AND F O R T H E C O U N T Y O F POWELL, AND THE M O N T A N A DEFENDER PROJECT, Respondents, and T H E BOARD O F INSTITUTIONS AND T H E H O N O R A B L E ROBERT L. W O O D A H L , ATTORNFI GENERAL O F MONTANA, Amicus Curiae. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Counsel of Record: For P e t i t i o n e r : Daniels and Mizner, Deer Lodge, Montana M. K. Daniels argued, Deer Lodge, Montana For Respondents : Thomas Dooling argued, Dillon, Montana Sandra R. Muckelston argued, Missoula, Montana David J. Patterson appeared, Missoula, Montana For Amicus Curiae : Nick A . Rotering appeared, Helena, Montana Submitted: April 20, 1976 % \ i f - - Filed : 4 s t~ ! h , M r . J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. P e t i t i o n e r seeks a w r i t of supervisory c o n t r o l o r o t h e r appropriate w r i t t o set a s i d e o r d e r s of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i r e c t i n g him t o award increased good t i m e allowances t o Montana S t a t e Prison inmates Alva Dale Henke and Richard Lawrence S u l l i - van. Henke has subsequently been r e l e a s e d on p a r o l e rendering t h e a c t i o n moot a s t o him and we l i m i t our consideration t o t h e f a c t s concerning Sullivan. Sullivan was sentenced t o p r i s o n on October 29, 1974, f o r consecutive t e r m s of twenty years and f i v e years on one count of aggravated a s s a u l t committed on March 6 , 1974, and a second count of aggravated burglary committed on March 2 1 , 1974. Acting under s e c t i o n 80-1905, R.C.M. 1947, a s amended J u l y 1, 1974, p e t i t i o n e r c l a s s i f i e d S u l l i v a n a s a h a b i t u a l offend- er. This meant t h a t while working within t h e prison w a l l s he could earn only f i v e days of good time per month i n s t e a d of t e n . I n 1975 s e c t i o n 80-1905, R.C.M. 1947, was amended t o remove t h i s l i m i t a t i o n on good t i m e awards t o h a b i t u a l offenders. P e t i t i o n e r , however, refused t o apply t h e 1975 amendments r e t r o a c t i v e l y . O n August 19, 1975, S u l l i v a n sought a w r i t of mandamus and on October 10, 1975, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ordered p e t i t i o n e r t o g r a n t Sullivan t e n days of good time per month r e t r o a c t i v e t o J u l y 1, 1974. It i s t h i s order t h a t p e t i t i o n e r asks t h i s Court t o s e t a s i d e . The s i n g l e i s s u e on t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n i s whether t h i s i s an appropriate case f o r an extraordinary w r i t . In P e t i t i o n of Charles W. Waite, Jr., 143 Mont. 321, 322, 389 P. 2d 407, t h e Court s a i d : " I t i s incumbent f u r t h e r upon p e t i t i o n e r s seeking o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h i s c o u r t t o make a showing of t h e inadequacy o r un- a v a i l a b i l i t y of any o t h e r remedy, e i t h e r i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o r by way of appeal t o t h i s court. * * *" H e r e , p e t i t i o n e r f i l e d a n o t i c e of appeal on November 10, 1975, p r i o r t o f i l i n g t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n on November 19, 1975. H e has f a i l e d t o show t h a t h i s remedy of appeal t o t h i s Court would be inadequate. There is no emergency here and it has not been shown t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t acted a r b i t r a r i l y . To t h e contrary, t h e record d i s c l o s e s t h a t S u l l i v a n ' s p e t i t i o n was f u l l y considered on i t s m e r i t s and p e t i t i o n e r had an opportunity t o be heard before t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t rendered its decision. Without a showing of extenuating circumstances we w i l l not i s s u e an extraordinary w r i t a s a method of s h o r t c u t appeal. S t a t e ex rel. Kober & Kyriss v. D i s t r i c t Court, 147 Mont. 116, 117, 4 1 0 P.2d 945. Accordingly, t h e motion t o quash i s granted and t h e a p p l i c a t i o n i s denied. W e concur: Hon. M. %es S o r t e , D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g i n place of M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison.