4 r —s ' (yr)

Tr

- rt 

### T t,Ai
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA OP 22-0669

DENNIS MARTIN FRIEDT,

Petitioner,

v. JIM SALMONSEN, Warden, MONTANA STATE PRISON,

Respondent. 

### DEC 132922

Bow , 11 GT ,-,erwv,- r -,c1 .urt iv,ontana ORDER

Representing himself, Dennis Martin Friedt has filed a petition for habeas corpus relief, arguing that since he has served five years incarcerated at the Montana State Prison and other facilities, he is eligible to be released upon parole, pursuant toBoardofPardons
v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369, 107 S. Ct. 2415 (1987). We amend the caption to reflect "where and by whom the petitioner is confined orrestrained." Section 46-22-201(1)(c), MCA. This Court is familiar with Friedt's criminal history. In early 2018, Friedt entered guilty pleas to four counts ofsexual assault. On April 6, 2018, the Yellowstone County DistrictCourtsentencedFriedttotheMontana StatePrisonfora concurrent, fift y-yearterm with twenty-five years suspended. The court imposed a fifteen-year parole ineligibility restriction. Through counsel, Friedt appealed. On November 12, 2019, this Court dismissed Friedt's appeal after independent examination ofthe record, pursuant to § 46-8- 103(2), MCA, andAnders v. Ca., 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). State v. Friedt,No. DA 18-0363, Order (Mont. Nov. 12, 2019). Friedt arguesthat "[s]uch deprivation ofa protected liberty interest is a violation of [his] civil rights as is guaranteed to him under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution." He raises three issues that we summarize. Friedt contends that he 12/13/2022

Case Number: OP 22-0669has been denied: (1) Due Process ofLaw as well as the benefit ofretroactive application

ofthe law; and (2) Equal Protection and application ofthe law. He further contends that he has been exposed to cruel and unusual punishment under theU.S. Constitution'sEighth Amendment. Friedt requests an investigation and an evidentiary hearing. As an appellate court ofreview, this Court does not conduct investigations or hold fact-finding, evidentiary hearings. Wepoint outthatthis Court addressedFriedt'sprevious claim where he put forth that after serving a five-year sentence, he is entitled to release. We stated: "Montana lawprovidesthat, for these sexual assault convictions, "the offender shall be punished by life imprisonment or imprisonment in the state prison for a term of not less than 4 years[.]" Section 45-5-502(3), MCA (2017)." Friedt v. State and Salmonsen, No. OP 22-0338, Order at 2 (Mont. Aug. 30, 2022). Friedt has not been denied any benefit oflaw because the law has changed. Friedt hasnoprotected liberty interest inparole. Thehigh court issuedtheAllen decisionin 1987, and the Montana Legislature changed the applicable statute. "In response to Allen, the Montana legislature amended § 46-23-201, MCA, to state that 'the Board may release' inmates on parole when there is a reasonable probability that the prisoner can be released without detriment. Section 46-23-201, MCA (1989)." Worden v. Mont. Bd. ofPardons & Parole, 1998 MT 168, ¶42, 289 Mont. 459, 962 P.2d.1157. This Court determined that "this amendment extinguished any federally-protected liberty interest in parole for all Montana Inmates." Worden, ¶42. Friedt committed his offenses well after 1989. "Under both Montana and federal precedent, parole is a privilege and not a right." McDermott v. McDonald, 2001 MT 89, ¶ 19, 305 Mont. 166, 24 P.3d 200. While Friedt may be eligible for parole, that eligibility does not entitle him to immediate release. We observe that in 2018, the District Court imposed a lawful, fifteen-year parole eligibility restriction. Section 46-18-202(2), MCA (2017). We have stated that "[p]arole

. . . is a discretionary grant of freedom frorn incarceration." McDermott, ¶ 24. The Board of Pardons and Parole has broad authority and discretion to decide an inmate's parole. McDermott, ¶25. 2Friedt's arguments lack merit. Friedt cannot demonstrate constitutional violations

in this remedy ofhabeas corpus. More than thirty years ago, this Court stated that alleged violations ofconstitutional rights cannot be addressed in a writ ofhabeas corpus because the claims do not "challenge the legal sufficiency ofthe cause for incarceration." Gates v. Missoula County Comm'rs.,235 Mont. 261, 262,766 P.2d 884, 884-85 (1988). (Emphasis in original.) Friedt has not demonstrated an illegal sentence. Section 46-22-101(1), MCA. Friedt is not entitled to his release or habeas corpusrelief. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Friedt's Petition for Writ ofHabeas Corpus is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is CLOSED as ofthis Order's date. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy ofthis Order to counsel of record and to Dennis Martin Friedt per er ly. DATED this / day ofDecember, 2022.

ChiefJustice



# LAL

Justices

3