Title: Gillham Petitions Orders

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

FILED

~ ~
ot 182007
No. PR 06.0118
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANRS’ I L E D
2007 MT 98
APR 1 8 2007
CODY WILLIAM MARBLE, ) tence Smith
) ‘Stare Be wen MS COURT
Petitioner ) OPINION
) and
v ) ORDER
)
STATE OF MONTANA, )
)
Respondent, )

1 The Attomey General has requested that this Court clarify its decision in Petition of
Gillham, 216 Mont. 279, 704 P.2d 1019 (1985), to address the question of whether a district
court, as opposed to the Supreme Court, can issue a Gillham-type order.

{2 _In Gillham, we held that when a convicted person files a petition for post-conviction
relief alleging inadequate assistance of counsel, the integrity of the fact-finding system
requires that his counsel assist the court in the administration of justice by admitting, denying
cor qualifying the allegations of fact made by the petitioner. Further, the petitioner, having

challenged counsel's effectiveness, “has opened the gate to those portions of his revelations

 

tohis attorney that affect his claims in his petition for post-conviction relief,” and is notin a

 

position to object on the grounds of privilege. We ordered that Gillham’s counsel respond to
the allegations and that if, in making said response, he necessarily revealed confidential

information from Gillham, counsel would “not be subject to disciplinary proceedings before
ww ~

the Commission of Practice of the State Bar of Montana, nor subject to charges of
‘malpractice.” Gillham, 704 P.2d at 1020.

{B At the time of the Gillham decision, petitions for post-conviction relief were
addressed to the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the Gillham decision required that, if a
response from counsel were necessary, “the Attorney General shall first apply to this Court
for an order preserving such responding attorney from charges of discipline or malpractice
for revealing necessary confidential information from such convicted person.” (Emphasis
added.)

{4 Since Gillham, the post-conviction procedure has changed. Petitions for post-
conviction relief are now initially filed inthe district cour rather than this Court. Section 46-
21-105(2), MCA. Accordingly, we hereby clarify that Gillham motions may be filed in the
district court wherein the post-conviction proceeding is pending. An attomey ordered to
respond pursuant to a Gillham order issued by a district court shall not be subject to
disciplinary proceeding before the Commission on Practice nor be subject to charges of
malpractice, This immunity extends to all information, testimony or documents necessarily

provided in response tothe allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel.

paren this (ay or ape 2007