# ORIGINAL FILED

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA OP 23-0402
NATHAN KING,

Petitioner and Appellant.

v. PETE BLUDWORTH, WARDEN, CROSSROADS CORRECTION CENTER,

Respondent and Appellee. 

### AUG 0 8 2023 Bowen Greenwood CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF MONTANA

Bovv o r E!..&nwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana ORDER

Nathan King has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, indicating that his incarceration is illegal. He states that he recently learned that he "suffer[s] from dyslexia" and that this "information was unavailable for [his previous] appeal efforts.

. . ." King maintains that he was unfairly tried and asserts an affirmative defense argument of justifiable use offorce. He statesthat "[his] [previous] filingsshould not count against him in any way." He asserts that he is innocent and requests assignment of "counsel for this appeal." In September 2011, a Cascade Countyjury found King guilty of felony deliberate homicide for killing Christopher Terrey, and felony aggravated assault ofhis life partner. King received two consecutive sentences totaling 120 years in the Montana State Prison along with parole eligibility restrictions. King appealed and raised two issues. State v. King, 2013 MT 139, 370 Mont. 277, 304 P.3d 1 (King 1). King contended the District Court erred by excluding "evidence of justifiable use offorce as a defense to the charge ofdeliberate homicidell" King I, 113. He also contended that the court erred by excluding "evidence ofthe victim's prior mental health history, suicide attempts, and cutting behavior, and [that] this exclusion violate[d] King's Sixth amendment right to compulsory process and confrontation and Fourteenth 08/08/2023

Case Number: OP 23-0402 09/20/2023Amendment right to due process[.]" KingI, ¶ 4 (footnote omitted). This Court rejected

King's contentions. KingI, ¶¶22-40. We held: Contrary to King's assertion, however, the District Court did not preclude a self-defense or justifiable use of force in defense of another claim for "the mere fact" that they were inconsistent with an accident defense. As already explained, there was nothing in the District Court's pretrial order that prevented King frorn raising a self-defense claim. The order only provided that prior to a jury instruction on self-defense, there would need to be "sufficient facts in the record to find that although the defendant purposely orknowingly causedthe death ofanotherhewasjustified in doingsobecause he reasonably believed that the use ofdeadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm to himself.

. . ." KingI, ¶24. The District Court also pointed out as a matter oflaw that as it pertained to thejustifiable use offorce in defense ofanother claim, "the defense was not available in a situation involving only two people." KingI, 

## ¶27. "The court therefore concluded that King's act ofkilling Terrey could not be legallyjustified on the grounds that King had to use deadly force against Terrey to keep Terrey from killing himself." King I, ¶27. This Court could not reach the second issue because "King has not referenced any place in the recordwhere he objected on constitutional groundsto the exclusion ofthe evidence." King ¶38. We affirmed King's conviction. In February 2014, King filed a petition for postconviction relief with the District Court. The District Court issued an Order dismissing King's petition in May 2015. King timely filed a notice ofappeal. Kingv. State, No. DA 15-0374, 2016 MT 85N, 2016 Mont. LEXIS 310 (Apr. 5, 2016) (KingII). King raised four issues on appeal but this Court only addressed the issue preserved for appeal. KingII, ¶3. King contended "that his attorney's failure to highlight selected portions of the victim's mental health records constituted ineffective assistance of counsel because it prevented those portions from being adrnitted into evidence[.]"King 5. We affirmed the District Court, concluding that the District Court reviewed and decided "that the records were inadmissible[,]" and that "King did not receive ineffective assistance ofcounsel:" KingII, ¶7.

2

### While this appeal was pending, in September 2015, Kingpetitioned this Court for a

writ of supervisory control, asking this Court to "jp]reside over his trial proceedings

. . .' and recent postconviction matter." King v. Eighth JudicialDist. Ct., No. OP 15-0505, Order, at 1 (Mont. Sept. 1, 2015) (KingIII). King requested reversal of his 2011 conviction and "`dismiss[al] of the charges on the grounds of unconstitutional proceedings.' KingIII, at 1. We denied King's Petition. ThisCourthas already addressedthe arguments Kingattemptstoraise in his current Petition. KingI, KingII,and KingIII. Kinghashad his day in court. His recent diagnosis does not change that. King's Petition is not a substitute for another appeal. King is precluded from raising these issues by way ofhabeas corpus when he has exhausted the remedy ofappeal. Section 46-22-101(2), MCA. King is not entitled to relief. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that King's Petition for Writ ofHabeas Corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED. ITIS ORDEREDthat King'srequest for assistanceofcounsel isDENIED, asmoot. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy ofthis Order to counsel of record and to Nathan Kingpersonally. DATED this 7 day ofAugust, 2023.

ChiefJustice

4:9 0 • 011 H". .* • -mr•fsgrr

- •. •


### (;)
Justices 3