Opinion ID: 882460
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Responsive Pleading and Evidentiary Hearing

Text: Bishop contends that the circumstances in his case require a responsive pleading and an evidentiary hearing. We disagree. With respect to the responsive pleading, we find that under § 46-21-201(1), MCA, the court may or may not require a responsive pleading. Such a responsive pleading depends on whether the files and records of the case conclusively show that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. Section 46-21-201(1), MCA. After reviewing the record we find that the files and records of the case did in fact conclusively show that Bishop was not entitled to relief. Therefore, no responsive pleading was necessary. With regard to the evidentiary hearing, we have previously said, [I]t is not error to deny an application for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing if the allegations are without merit or would otherwise not entitle the petitioner to relief. Coleman v. State (1981), 194 Mont. 428, 433, 633 P.2d 624, 627. Coleman controls in the case at bar. Clearly Bishop's allegations were without merit and therefore, the District Court did not err in not requiring an evidentiary hearing.