Opinion ID: 877465
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 38

Heading: the motion to dismiss is further granted as to 5 of petitioner's claims because he failed to raise them in his direct appeal and because they are without merit.

Text: The final five claims that have been raised in petitioner's petition have been raised for the first time in this proceeding. They are: SS, UU, WW, YY, ZZ. Petitioner has waived his right to present these issues at this time by failing to raise them in the direct appeal of his conviction. People v. Jenkins, 11 Ill. App.3d 690, 297 N.E.2d 279 (1973); Andrews v. Morris, Utah, 607 P.2d 816 (1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 891, 101 S.Ct. 254, 66 L.Ed.2d 120 (1980). Beyond that the claims are without merit as a matter of law. SS. The contention raised here is that the death penalty is imposed so rarely that it serves no legitimate state interests. This claim has been rejected numerous times and is without merit. See Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 173, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2925, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976); State v. McKenzie, 171 Mont. 278, 557 P.2d 1023, 1033 (1976); Andrews v. Morris, Utah, 607 P.2d at 824 (1980); and State v. Fitzpatrick, Further Order and Findings and Conclusion, pp. 18-19 (January 7, 1981). UU. Petitioner contends that he was denied the right to a unanimous jury verdict. But when the instructions are read as a whole, as they must be under Coleman II, 605 P.2d at 1052, the claim fails. See Cupp v. Naughton, 414 U.S. 141, 147, 94 S.Ct. 396, 38 L.Ed.2d 368 (1973). In addition, petitioner's reliance on the federal constitution is misplaced in that the federal constitution does not guarantee the right to a unanimous verdict in state felony jury trials. Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404, 92 S.Ct. 1628, 32 L.Ed.2d 184 (1972); Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356, 92 S.Ct. 1620, 32 L.Ed.2d 152 (1972). WW. Petitioner's claim that the entire record was not certified to the Supreme Court because some unspecified proceeding were not transcribed is without merit. Section 46-18-309, MCA, recognizes the distinction between the record certified by the sentencing court and the transcript prepared by the court reporter. It is the duty of the appellant to select portions of the transcript to be submitted in all criminal appeals. Section 46-20-302, MCA. YY. Petitioner contends that his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights have been violated because of alleged discriminatory application of the death penalty in Montana and in the United States. The allegations he makes in support of this contention are similar to those supporting similar contentions raised in the United States Supreme Court in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972), Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976), and Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242, 96 S.Ct. 2960, 49 L.Ed.2d 913 (1976), where the court refused to accept the argument. The contention of discriminatory application of the death penalty fails as a matter of law on the basis of Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976), and Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 97 S.Ct. 555, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977). See Spinkellink v. Wainwright, 578 F.2d 582 (1978). ZZ. Petitioner has failed in his final allegation of error to clearly set forth (any) alleged violation or violations as required by Section 46-21-104, MCA, and his claim therefore fails as a matter of law. Dated this 18 day of February, 1981. /s/ A.B. Martin DISTRICT JUDGE