Court Opinion

ID: 9386300
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-11 22:06:24.490922+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:05.484855
License: Public Domain

04/11/2023

                                          DA 22-0626
                                                                                       Case Number: DA 22-0626

              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

                                          2023 MT 66N

JAMES WILLIAM WALKER,

              Petitioner and Appellant,

         v.

STATE OF MONTANA,

              Respondent and Appellee.

APPEAL FROM:          District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District,
                      In and For the County of Gallatin, Cause No. DC-15-333C
                      Honorable John C. Brown, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

               For Appellant:

                      James William Walker, Self-Represented, Deer Lodge, Montana

               For Appellee:

                      Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General Katie F. Schulz,
                      Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana

                      Audrey Cromwell, Gallatin County Attorney, Afton M. Jessop,
                      Deputy County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana

                                                  Submitted on Briefs: March 8, 2023
                                                            Decided: April 11, 2023

Filed:
                                   ir--6--if
                      __________________________________________
                                       Clerk
Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1       Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating

Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not

serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this

Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana

Reports.

¶2       James William Walker (Walker) appeals from an Order Dismissing Request for

Postconviction Relief issued by the Eighteenth Judicial District Court on October 25, 2022.

We affirm.

¶3       On March 8, 2016, a jury found Walker guilty of Aggravated Assault, in violation

of § 45-5-202, MCA, following a two-day trial. On July 20, 2017, the District Court

sentenced Walker to a commitment of twenty years in Montana State Prison. Walker did

not directly appeal his conviction.

¶4       On January 29, 2020, Walker applied for Review of Sentence.1 On May 20, 2020,

the Sentence Review Division dismissed his application as untimely.

¶5       On June 23, 2022, Walker filed a Motion in the Nature of Writ Error Coram Nobis

Including Brief (Motion) in the District Court. He alleged “structural” errors including

prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Walker asserted

that these allegations constituted “new evidence of error.”

1
    Walker applied for Review of Sentence on August 2, 2017, but withdrew that request.
                                                2
¶6     On October 25, 2022, the District Court issued an Order Dismissing Request for

Postconviction Relief. The court considered the Motion as a petition for postconviction

relief, pursuant to § 46-21-102, MCA. Petitions for postconviction relief must be filed

within a year of the date a conviction becomes final. Walker’s petition was filed nearly

four years after his conviction was made final. The court consequently denied his petition

as untimely.

¶7     The District Court did not find cause pursuant to the exceptions under

§ 46-21-102(2), MCA, to exempt Walker’s petition from the statutory deadline.

¶8     We review a district court’s denial of postconviction relief to determine if the court’s

findings of fact are clearly erroneous, and if its conclusions of law are correct. Kenfield v.

State, 2016 MT 197, ¶ 7, 384 Mont. 322, 377 P.3d 1207.

¶9     A writ of coram nobis is not available as a remedy for postconviction relief. State

v. Barrack, 267 Mont. 154, 159, 882 P.2d 1028, 1031 (1994). The writ of coram nobis was

incorporated into § 46-21-101(1), MCA, which details petitions for postconviction relief,

in 1997. 1997 Mont. Laws ch. 378, § 3. This Court abolished the writ of coram nobis,

effective October 1, 2011, upon revising the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure.

¶10    The District Court conducted a thorough analysis of the applicable laws and

correctly concluded that Walker’s petition was time-barred.

¶11    We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our

Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion of the

Court, the case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear application of

applicable standards of review.

                                              3
¶12   Affirmed.

                              /S/ MIKE McGRATH

We Concur:

/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON
/S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR

                          4