ORIGINAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

OP 23-0603 

DONALD W. PULST, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Respondent. 

ORDER 

FILE 

OCT 31 2023 

Bowen Greenwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State of Montana 

Representing himself, Daniel Wayne Pulst has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus, indicating that he is entitled to good time that has not been credited against his 

sentence and that his incarceration is illegal. He states that he "compteted SOP-1 and 

SOP-2 and [he's] threatened with re-Incarceration if [he does] not complete it again."' He 

writes that none of the MSOTA counselors in the Great Falls area have Openings in their 

calendars to take him.2 Pulst requests a court order allowing hirn "to use the services of 

any licensed provider if required by [his] parole officer." 

Some background is necessary here. Available electronic records indicate that, in 

2013, a jury found Pulst guilty of sexual intercourse without consent, two counts of sexual 

assault, and misdemeanor indecent exposure. The Hill County District Court sentenced 

Pulst to concurrent prison terms: thirty years with twenty years suspended for the sexual 

intercourse without consent conviction and twenty years with ten years suspended for each 

sexual assault conviction. He also received a six-month jail term for the misdemeanor. 

Pulst appealed. This Court affirmed in part, reversing the written judgment to correct three 

conditions. State v. Pulst, 2015 MT 134, 379 Mont. 494, 351 P.3d 687 (Pulst I). 

I SOP is sex offender treatment prograrn, also offered at the Montana State Prison. 

2 MSOTA stands for Montana Sexual Offender Treatment Association. 

10/31/2023

Case Number: OP 23-0603
In 2017, the State sought to revoke the sentences for the sexual offense convictions. 

The District Court held a hearing on the violations of his conditions and revoked his 

sentence. On March 29, 2018, the District Court sentenced him to twenty years at the 

Montana State Prison (MSP) with fourteen years suspended for the first felony, and the 

court imposed suspended, ten-years terms for the two sexual assault convictions. Pulst did 

not appeal. 

In January 2021, the State sought another revocation of Pulses sentence. The 

District Court resentenced Pulst. Through counsel, Pulst appealed. We reversed the 

revocation of Pulse s 2018 sentence and vacated the sentence imposed on February 5, 2021. 

State v. Pulst, 2023 MT 162, ¶¶ 3, 14, 413 Mont. 197, 534 P.3d 128 (Pulst II). We stated 

that "[Ole District Court, in essence, found an anticipatory probation violation" when Pulst 

did not obtain a MSOTA clinical member prior to his release into the community when the 

correlating condition did not require that. Pulst II, ¶ 6. We pointed out: 

Pursuant to § 46-18-203(7), MCA, the District Court was required to 

find Pulst violated condition 10. dd. as a predicate to exercising its authority 

to impose a new sentence. Here, like Beam, the timeline for completing sex 

offender treatment by the condition's plain language is inconsistent with the 

State's position and the District Court's conclusion that Pulst violated 

condition 10. dd. The plain language of condition 10. dd. contained in the 

2018 Order and Sentence requires Pulst enter and complete sex offender 

' treatment within 3 years of release into the community, not that he have 

treatment lined up before his release. The District Court had no authority to 

revoke Pulst's sentence and impose a new sentence on the basis that Pulst 

did not have MSOTA sex offender treatment arranged prior to release to the 

suspended portion of his sentence as no such requirement was contained in 

condition 10. dd. of the 2018 Order and Sentence on Petition to Revoke. 

Pulst II, ¶ 13. (Emphasis in original.) This Court re-imposed his sentence from March 29, 

2018. 

Here, instead of an anticipatory probation violation, we have anticipatory 

incarceration by Pulst. This Court observes that Pulst is not incarcerated. Since 

September 7, 2023, Pulst has been under the supervision of the Probation and Parole Office 

in Great Falls. The habeas corpus "statute allows a prisoner to challenge the legal 

sufficiency of the cause for incarceration." Gates v. Missoula County Comm 'rs, 235 Mont. 

2 
261, 262, 766 P.2d 884, 884 (1988). Pulst has not alleged that the cause of his incarceration 

is unlawful. We remind Pulst that he must enter and complete sex offender treatment in 

the community within three years, according to the March 29, 2018 Order and Sentence. 

Pulst's remedy is not with this Court. Pulst is not entitled to good time credit 

because he committed his offenses well after 1995. His attached sentence calculation 

reflects that the MSP Records Department updated his sentences on September 7, 2023. 

Pulst is under the supervision of the Department of Corrections (DOC), whether he is on 

probation or parole. Sections 46-23-1 0I1 and -1021, MCA. His remedy lies with the DOC. 

He may work with his supervising officer and place his request in writing to the DOC 

concerning the lack of available treatment providers where he has been placed. 

Accordingly, 

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

DISMISSED. 

The Clerk is also directed to provide a copy to counsel of record and to Daniel 

Wayne Pulst personally. 

DATED this I( day of October, 2023. 

3 

Chief Justice