uAtiuotil, 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

OP 23-0736 

RANDAL VEACH, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

BOB THATCHER, 

Respondent. 

ORDER 

c 

El 7D 

JAN 0 9 2:4 

Bowen Greenwood -0 o„. Lid oi ,vioritana 

Randal Veach petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his 

incarceration is illegal and that his sentence violates the right to be free from double 

jeopardy. He also indicates that the Board of Pardons and Parole (Board) violated his due 

process rights because he should have been granted parole. 

Upon review, the crux of Veach's complaint concerns the handling of a disciplinary 

violation by the Department of Corrections (DOC); it has nothing to do with the Board. 

Veach explains that he "appealed the Hearing Results" and that the responding Billings 

Probation and Parole Deputy Chief "stated that the hearing policy and procedures were not 

followed according to [DOC] policy 6.2.624 . . . ." Veach states that his disciplinary 

hearing was not held within five days of the violation as stated in this policy. He contends 

that his right to due process has been violated. Veach requests conditional release to Sober 

Living House and the reinstatement of his community placement. 

"There is no absolute standard for what constitutes due process." McDermott v. 

McDonald, 2001 MT 89, ¶ 10, 305 Mont. 166, 24 P.3d 200. Here, Veach includes a copy 

of the DOC's response to his appeal. The Deputy Chief provided that while she found that 

the disciplinary hearing had not occurred within five days in noncompliance with the 

policy, she did find substantial evidence to support the charges. She also wrote to Veach: 

01/09/2024

Case Number: OP 23-0736
Your due process rights were afforded to you, in which you were given notice 

of the violations, you were able to and did speak on your own behalf and you 

waived the right to request witnesses. 

The Deputy Chief responded that Veach incurred a previous Class II violation and that 

removal from Alpha House Pre-Release Center and placement at S.T.A.R.T. were 

warranted "due to not following simple rules." Veach has not demonstrated how he was 

prejudice by a hearing held some two weeks later instead of five days after the violation. 

He has not demonstrated a violation of his due process rights. 

A writ of habeas corpus is not the remedy for alleged constitutional violations. 

Gates v. Missoula County Comm'rs, 235 Mont. 261, 262, 766 P.2d 884, 884-85 (1988). 

The statute for habeas corpus relief "allows a prisoner to challenge the legal sufficiency of 

the cause for incarceration." Gates, 235 Mont. at 262, 766 P.2d at 884. (Emphasis in 

original). Veach cannot demonstrate a violation of his right to be free from double jeopardy 

via this remedy, and this Court cannot consider his claim. Veach is not entitled to habeas 

corpus relief. Section 46-22-101(1), MCA. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Veach's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and 

DISMISSED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is CLOSED as of this Order's date. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to 

Randal Veach personally. 

f 

DATED this o day of January, 2024. 

Chief Justice 

- — 

• • 

-- v - z

C 

2 rc 
jj o.:71 *'

4; 7.)(r.

Justices 

3