# 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 ofPardons and Parole (Board) violated his due process rights because he should have been granted parole. Upon review, the crux ofVeach's complaint concernsthe handling ofa 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 hearingpolicy and procedureswerenot followed according to [DOC] policy 6.2.624

. . . ." Veach states that his disciplinary hearing was not held within five days ofthe violation as stated in this policy. He contends that hisright to due process hasbeen violated. Veach requests conditional releaseto Sober Living House and the reinstatement ofhis 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 ofthe DOC's response to his appeal. The Deputy Chiefprovided 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 23-0736Yourdueprocess rightswereaffordedtoyou, inwhichyouwere given notice

ofthe violations,youwere able to and did speak on your own behalfandyou 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 offive days after the violation. He has not demonstrated a violation ofhis 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 ofhisrighttobe free from doublejeopardy 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 ofHabeas Corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is CLOSED as ofthis 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 ofJanuary, 2024.

ChiefJustice

- — • •

-- v - z

C 

# 2 rcjj o. : 71 *' 

# 4 7.) ( r. ; Justices

3