ORIGINAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

OP 22-0309 

TIMOTHY ERIC RITESMAN, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

STATE OF MONTANA, FOURTH JUDICIAL 

DISTRICT COURT, HON. EDWARD P. 

McLEAN, Presiding, 

Respondents. 

JUN 2 8 2022 

Li< 'v., 1 1 C. . .v. 

, Court 

Oi IVIontana 

ORDER 

Representing himself, Timothy Eric Ritesman has filed a "Notice of Filing of 

Petition for Supervisory Control," deemed a Petition for Writ of Supervisory Control, 

pursuant to M. R. App. P. 14(3). Ritesman contends that more than two years have elapsed 

since anything has occurred in his proceeding for postconviction relief. We amend the 

caption to include the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, and the presiding 

Judge. 

Supervisory control may be appropriate on a case-by-case basis. "This 

extraordinary remedy can be invoked when the case involves purely legal questions and 

urgent or emergency factors make the normal appeal process inadequate." State v. Spady, 

2015 MT 218, ¶ 11, 380 Mont. 179, 354 P.3d 590 (citing M. R. App. P. 14(3); Redding v. 

McCarter, 2012 MT 144, ¶ 17, 365 Mont. 316, 281 P.3d 189). "The case must meet one 

of three additional criteria: (a) [T]he other court is proceeding under a mistake of law and 

is causing a gross injustice; (b) [C]onstitutional issues of state-wide importance are 

involved; or (c) [T]he other court has granted or denied a motion for substitution of a judge 

in a criminal case." Spady, ¶ 11 (quoting M. R. App. P. 14(3)(a)-(c)). 

Ritesman includes a copy of the register of actions for his pending matter, initiated 

in 2018, to demonstrate that nothing has occurred since August 2020. He raises complaints 

06/28/2022

Case Number: OP 22-0309
about a biased judge, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel, 

among other claims. He states that he has newly discovered evidence and argues 

constitutional violations. 

We secured a more recent copy of the court's register of actions. Ritesman is 

mistaken that nothing has occurred in the last two years. We point to the court's May 16, 

2022 Minute Entry and Order. The court held a hearing concerning Ritesman's request for 

substitution of counsel. Toward the conclusion, Ritesman stated that he would seek 

supervisory control. The court issued an order granting immunity to Ritesman's counsel 

for revealing any confidential information in answer to the court's questions at the hearing. 

The court granted counsel's motion to withdraw and directed him to notify the public 

defender's conflict office to have new counsel appointed. 

Ritesman is not entitled to a writ of supervisory control over the District Court. He 

has not demonstrated that the District Court is proceeding upon a mistake of law, causing 

a gross injustice. M. R. App. P. 14(3)(a). Ritesman has not shown urgency or that his 

remedy of a normal appeal is inadequate. Spady, ¶ 11; M. R. App. P. 14(3). Ritesman may 

not agree with the outcome or how his matter is proceeding, but the case is moving forward 

in District Court. Section 46-21-201, MCA. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Ritesman's Petition for Writ of Supervisory 

Control is DENIED and DISMISSED. 

The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to provide a copy of this Order to the 

Honorable Ed McLean (Ret.), Fourth Judicial District Court; to Shirley E. Faust, Clerk of 

District Court, Missoula County, under Cause No. DV-2018-829; to Matt Jennings, 

Missoula County Attorney's Office; to Tobias J. Cook, Ritesman's Counsel; and to 

Timothy Eric Ritesman. 

DATED this Z (t day of June, 2022. 

Chief Justice 

2 
,?f 

,yr 

Justices 

3