ORIGINAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

OP 22-0149 

DAVID REKO HERNANDEZ, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

PETER BLUDWORTH, Warden, 

Respondent. 

HLED 

APR 0 5 2022 

Bowen Greenwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State nt hitnntana 

ORDER 

Representing himself, David Reko Hernandez has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus, claiming that his incarceration is illegal. He attaches a January 28, 2022 order 

frorn the District Court in Toole County, where Hernandez is incarcerated, denying his 

habeas corpus petition. Hernandez argues that the court did not apply the habeas corpus 

statute correctly. He requests this Court to grant relief and remand his criminal case to the 

Lewis and Clark County District Court for resentencing. 

Available electronic records indicate that in August 2008, the Yellowstone County 

District Court sentenced Hernandez to the Montana State Prison (MSP) for a twenty-fiveyear term and imposed a parole eligibility restriction of ten years. The District Court also 

suspended the last ten years of the sentence. In May 2019, the Lewis and Clark County 

District Court sentenced Hernandez to the Department of Corrections (DOC) for a fiveyear term to run consecutively to his prior sentence. 

Hernandez contends that the State failed in its duty to care for the physical and 

mental health of those within its custody and control when it released him on parole without 

medication to care for his bi-polar syndrome. Hernandez claims that his inability to 

properly regulate his actions led to his parole violation, which in turn led to his current 

incarceration. Hernandez states that he "recognizes his own responsibility as well" and 

therefore asks "not for a complete release from his conviction, but for an appropriate, legal 

sentence that takes into account his mental-health and rehabilitative needs." 

04/05/2022

Case Number: OP 22-0149
Hernandez is not entitled to relief for these claims through a writ of habeas corpus. 

Section 46-22-101(1), MCA. He did not appeal to this Court in 2019. 

Section 46-20-104(1), MCA. An appeal is the proper forum to raise issues arising from a 

conviction and sentence; such issues cannot be addressed in post-judgment petitions like 

habeas corpus. State v. Wright, 2001 MT 282, 1 36-37, 307 Mont. 349, 42 P.2d 753. 

The law is clear that constitutional claims concerning conditions of confinement and 

Medical care are not remedied by writs of habeas corpus. Gates v. Missoula Cnty. 

Comm'rs, 235 Mont. 261, 262, 766 P.2d 884, 884-85 (1988). Hernandez is correct that 

"[t]he government custodian responsible for the custody and care of incarcerated persons 

has a constitutional duty to provide for the 'general well-being' and 'basic human needs' 

of incarcerated persons, including but not necessarily limited to food, clothing, shelter, 

medical care, mental health care, and reasonable safety." Disability Rights Mont v. 

Mont judicial Dists. 1-22, No. OP 20-0189, 2020 Mont. LEXIS 973 (Apr. 14, 2020). A 

properly established claim may be cognizable in an appropriate civil action—but not in 

collateral attack of his conviction. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31, 

113 S. Ct. 2475, 2480 (1993) (noting that "the treatment a prisoner receives in prison and 

the conditions under which he is confined are subject to scrutiny under the 

Eighth Amendment."). See also Quigg v. Slaughter, 2007 MT 76, ¶ 19, 336 Mont. 474, 

154 P.3d 1217 (citing Jellison v. Mahoney, 1999 MT 217, ¶ 12, 295 Mont. 540, 

986 P.2d 1089, and explaining requirements for establishing an Eighth Amendment , 

violation). Hernandez's arguments acknowledge this point by referring to principles of 

negligence and cases concerning such claims. 

Although Hernandez argues that his claims pertain to the "underl[ying] cause" of 

his imprisonment, for which the law expressly grants a remedy of habeas corpus, he has 

not demonstrated illegal incarceration through a facially invalid sentence such as Petitioner 

Lott in the case that he references. Lott v. State, 2006 MT 279, 1 22-23. 334 Mont. 270, 

150 P.3d 337. He is not entitled to habeas corpus relief or to resentencing. 

2 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Hernandez's Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED. 

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

David Reko Hernandez personally. 

DATED this ,D day of April, 2022. 

es24 

Justices