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 of force. He states that "[his] [previous] filings should 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 County jury found King guilty of felony deliberate 

homicide for killing Christopher Terrey, and felony aggravated assault of his 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 of force as a defense to the charge of deliberate homicidell" King I, 113. 

He also contended that the court erred by excluding "evidence of the 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

09/20/2023
Amendment right to due process[.]" King I, ¶ 4 (footnote omitted). This Court rejected 

King's contentions. King I, ¶¶ 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 

or knowingly caused the death of another he was justified in doing so because 

he reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent 

imminent death or serious bodily harm to himself. . . ." 

King I, ¶ 24. The District Court also pointed out as a matter of law that as it pertained to 

the justifiable use of force in defense of another claim, "the defense was not available in a 

situation involving only two people." King I, ¶ 27. "The court therefore concluded that 

King's act of killing Terrey could not be legally justified 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 

record where he objected on constitutional grounds to the exclusion of the 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 of appeal. King v. State, No. DA 15-0374, 2016 MT 85N, 2016 Mont. 

LEXIS 310 (Apr. 5, 2016) (King II). King raised four issues on appeal but this Court only 

addressed the issue preserved for appeal. King II, ¶ 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 of counsel:" King II, ¶ 7. 

2 
While this appeal was pending, in September 2015, King petitioned 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 Judicial Dist. Ct., 

No. OP 15-0505, Order, at 1 (Mont. Sept. 1, 2015) (King III). King requested reversal of 

his 2011 conviction and "`dismiss[al] of the charges on the grounds of unconstitutional 

proceedings.' King III, at 1. We denied King's Petition. 

This Court has already addressed the arguments King attempts to raise in his current 

Petition. King I, King II, and King III. King has had 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 of habeas corpus when he has exhausted the 

remedy of appeal. Section 46-22-101(2), MCA. King is not entitled to relief. Therefore, 

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

DISMISSED. 

IT IS ORDERED that King's request for assistance of counsel is DENIED, as moot. 

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

Nathan King personally.

DATED this 7 day of August, 2023. 

Chief Justice 

4:9 0 011 •H". .* •-mr•fsgrr- • . • 

(;) 

Justices 

3