Petitioner, 

v 

BOB OLSON, S.T.A.R.T., 

Respondent. 

ORDER 

Wesley W. Charlo has filed a "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus or any appropriate 

writ." Charlo explains that he seeks relief with this Court because the Missoula County 

District Court denied his two petitions for postconviction relief recently. 

Charlo raises several claims, which we summarize. Charlo contends that his 

"sentence is predicated on misinformation." He provides that this rnisinformation exists in 

the pre-sentence investigation (PSI), causing him to have an illegal sentence. He asserts 

that "those petitions were based on due process violations," due to this alleged 

misinformation. Charlo requests resentencing or withdrawal of his guilty pleas because he 

"did not have the opportunity to look over the plea agreement til after sentencing." He also 

contends that the court imposed a "triple IT surcharge, which is illegal." See State v. 

Ellison, 2017 MT 88, ¶ 24, 387 Mont. 243, 393 P.3d 192. 

Charlo's remedy is not with this Court or through a writ here. Section 46-22-101(2), 

MCA. His sentences are valid. We have explained this to Charlo previously. 

Earlier this year, this Court dismissed his petition for habeas corpus relief when the 

State of Montana responded that on January 20, 2022, the Lake County District Court had 

already issued an order vacating his 2012 conviction for failure to register as a violent 

offender. Charlo v. McDermott, No. OP 22-0553, Order (Mont. Feb. 15, 2022) (Charlo 1). 
Missoula County District Court sentenced Charlo in three separate rnatters 

and dismissed a fourth case. The District Court imposed a six-month, 

suspended jail term for misderneanor theft of labor or services and dismissed 

the felony burglary offense (hereinafter jail term for Cause No. DC-19-236). 

The District Court accepted Charlo's guilty plea to felony criminal 

possession of dangerous drugs with intent to distribute and felony criminal 

possession of dangerous drugs (all other drugs), committing him to the 

Department of Corrections (DOC) for a ten-year suspended term and fiveyear suspended term, respectively (hereinafter first 2020 sentence for Cause 

No. DC-19-476). The District Court also committed Charlo to the DOC for 

a five-year suspended term for felony criminal possession of dangerous drugs 

(all other drugs) (hereinafter second 2020 sentence for Cause No. DC-20-

268). The District Court ran the first and second 2020 sentences concurrently 

with each other and with the jail term. 

Charlo II, at 1-2. We stated that "Charlo was a probationer for his first and second 2020 

sentences when he violated the conditions of his suspended sentences." Charlo II, at 2. 

We explained that "[h]is existing DOC commitments were used to begin the revocation 

proceedings. Section 46-18-203(7), MCA." Charlo II, at 2-3. We concluded that Charlo 

could not use the remedy of habeas corpus to challenge his sentences on revocation and 

that his incarceration was not illegal.' Section 46-22-101(2), MCA. 

Charlo's instant claims have no merit. The Lake County District Court did not 

dismiss his 2012 conviction until January 20, 2022, well after his convictions, the PSI, and 

sentences arising in the Missoula County District Court. Charlo is too late to challenge his 

global plea agreement, as attached. "` [A] defendant waives the right to appeal all 

This Court dismissed his third petition for habeas corpus relief because Charlo did not present a 

prima facie case. See Charlo v. Olson, No. OP 22-0409, Order at 1 (Mont. Aug. 16, 2022) 

(Charlo III). 

2 
out that the court information technology user surcharge is per user and that he had three, 

separate criminal cases in Missoula County. Ellison, ¶ 24. Charlo never appealed his 

convictions or sentences, and by seeking habeas corpus relief, he has exhausted the remedy 

of appeal. Section 46-22-101(2), MCA. As stated before, he is precluded from seeking 

relief now through habeas corpus with this Court. Section 46-22-101(2), MCA. 

Charlo has filed three petitions with this Court in the last three months. We caution 

Charlo to refrain from repeatedly filing pleadings concerning his sentences. This Court 

will impose the requirement of a motion for leave to file if Charlo were to file another 

pleading challenging either his disrnissed Lake County sentence or his sentences on 

revocation from Missoula County. Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that Charlo's "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus or any 

appropriate writ[]" is DENIED and DISMISSED. 

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

Wesley W. Charlo personally. 

DATED this -1c, r171-day of September, 2022. 

Chief Justice 

3