No. 05-430 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2006 MT 109N

_______________________________________ DONNA JUNE ENRIGHT, Petitioner and Appellant,

v. STATE OF MONTANA, Respondent and Respondent.

______________________________________ APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Judith Basin, Cause No. DC 96-3003 The Honorable Loren Tucker, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Donna June Enright (pro se), Billings, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike McGrath, Attorney Genera l; John Paulson, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Barbara C. Harris, Special Deput y County Attorney; Judith Basin, Montana

____________________________________ Submitted on Briefs: April 25, 2006 Decided: May 16, 2006 Filed:

______________________________________ ClerkJustice Brian Morris delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Para graph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be cited as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and its case title, Supreme Court cause number and disp osition shall be included in this Court's quarterly list of noncitable cas es published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports. ¶2 Donna June Enright (Enright ) appeals from the District Court’s Order denying her amended petition for postconviction relief and denying her re lief requested in correspondence to the Clerk of Court in Judith Basin County. We affirm. ¶3 The State charged Enri ght with one count of deliberat e homicide and one count of arson on November 13, 1996, arising from th e death of Enright’s stepfather, Leonard Theis, in a trailer fire on Oc tober 17, 1996, in Stanford, Montana. The jury convicted Enright on both counts. Enright appealed and this Cour t reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial on the grounds that the district c ourt had improperly admitted certain prior bad acts evidence. State v. Enright , 1998 MT 322, 292 Mont. 204, 974 P.2d 1118. ¶4 The State tried Enright a second time and cons olidated her case with the re-trial of her brother and co-defendant Roy A. Link. The jury foun d Enright guilty of arson and deliberate homicide a second time and the Di strict Court sentenced her to concurrent prison terms with 20 years fo r arson and 75 years for delib erate homicide. This Court affirmed on appeal in State v. Enright , 2000 MT 372, 303 Mo nt. 457, 16 P.3d 366.

2¶5 Enright filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas co rpus on March 22, 2002. Enright alleged three separate grounds fo r relief, including prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of trial counsel in failing to put on a vigorous defense and to call witnesses, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel in failing to allow Enright to testify at her trial. The District Court directed Enright’s trial counsel to file a response to Enright’s allegations of ineffective assistan ce. Enright’s counsel filed an affidavit responding to Enright’s petitio n and the State filed a resp onse that raised several procedural arguments in addition to addressing the merits of Enright’s claims in light of her counsel’s affidavit. ¶6 The District Court issued an order appoin ting Ira Eakin to represent Enright on December 13, 2002. The court deemed Enright’s habe as petition to be a petition for postconviction relief and justified appointi ng counsel on the grounds that Enright’s ineffective assistance claim was fractured and difficult to unde rstand. The court reserved ruling on the State’s motion to dismiss and on the question of whether to hold a hearing. A series of delays ensued. ¶7 The District Court allowed Attorney Eakin to withdr aw as counsel on May 1, 2003, after learning of his forthcoming leave of absence. The District Court appointed Roberta Drew to represent En right and the presiding judge then recused himself. The Honorable Loren Tucker assumed jurisdiction of the case. Judge Tucker twice extended the deadline for the filing of an amended petition for pos tconviction relief, but Drew failed to file an amended petiti on or any further pl eading. The Distri ct Court conducted two show-cause hearings and sanctioned Atto rney Drew for failing to comply with the

3court’s order. Attorney Drew moved to w ithdraw as counsel on April 5, 2004, and advised the court that she could find no nonf rivolous issues to s upport Enright’s petition for postconviction relief. The District Cour t appointed R. Allen Be ck to replace Drew and represent Enright in the proceedings. ¶8 Attorney Beck filed a moti on to withdraw as counsel for Enright on October 22, 2004. Beck advised the District Court that Enright had requested that he not represent her, that Enright had alleged various ethical violations against Beck, and that the Office of Disciplinary Counsel had fo und the alleged ethical violatio ns to be without merit. Beck further stated that he had reviewed the ineffective assistance allegations raised by Enright in her petition, had reviewed the f iles and correspondence of previous counsel, and had examined the record of proceedings. Beck informed the court that he could find no basis for Enright’s allegati ons and no separate issues for a petition for postconviction relief that he would be willing to submit under his signature. The District Court approved Beck’s request and relieved him of any further duties as counsel. ¶9 The District Court then issued an order allowing Enright to file on the amended petition pro se before December 31, 20 04. Enright filed a document entitled “Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus or Petition for Post conviction Relief,” dated November 4, 2004. The District Court issu ed its Order on Decembe r 9, 2004, rejecting various arguments presented in the amended petition, but directing Attorney Beck to respond to two of Enright’s a llegations regarding Beck’s re presentation and reserving the final decision on Enright’s amende d petition pending Be ck’s response. ¶10 Beck filed a response on April 27, 2005. The District Court denied Enright’s

4amended petition for postconvic tion relief and other relief requested by Enright in correspondence to the Clerk of Court in Judi th Basin County in an Order dated May 25, 2005. ¶11 Enright has resorted to a scattergun approach in her brief on appeal that contains a repetitious mix of complaints regarding the va rious attorneys and district judges involved with her case, together with a multitude of allegations of proce dural and historical missteps, many of which fall outs ide the record. It appears th at Enright’s claims can be boiled down to four general cate gories: 1) delay, 2) denial of hearing, 3) conduct of her postconviction counsel, and 4) other extraneous matters. We review a district court’s denial of a petition for postconviction relief to determine whether th e court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous and whethe r its conclusions of law are correct. Bingman v. State , 2005 MT 272, ¶ 8, 329 Mont. 151, ¶ 8, 122 P.3d 1235, ¶ 8. ¶12 It is appropriate to decide this case pur suant to our Order of February 11, 2003, amending Section I.3 of our 1996 Inte rnal Operating Rules and providing for memorandum opinions. It is manifest on the face of the briefs and record before us that Enright’s appeal lacks merit because the fi ndings of fact are s upported by substantial evidence, that the legal issues are clearl y controlled by settled Mo ntana law that the District Court correctly interpreted, and ther e was no abuse of discretion by the District Court. ¶13 We affirm the judgment of the District Court.

/S/ BRIAN MORRIS

5We Concur: /S/ KARLA M. GRAY /S/ PATRICIA COTTER /S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART /S/ JAMES C. NELSON

6