Court Opinion

ID: 9391882
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-03 15:07:50.517177+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:28.604498
License: Public Domain

05/03/2023

             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA                                Case Number: OP 23-0227

                                         OP 23-0227
                                                                               FLED
  JUAN ANASTASIO RODRIGUEZ,                                                     MAY 0 2 2023
                                                                             Bowen Greenwood
                                                                           Clerk of Supreme Court
                                                                              State of Montana
               Petitioner,

        v.
                                                                       ORDER
  JAMES SALMONSEN, Warden,
  Montana State Prison;

               Respondent.

        In a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Juan Anastasio Rodriguez requests that his
 original sentence and all subsequent sentences be vacated. He states that he "brings this
 matter before the Court for the second time, in order to completely exhaust this argument
. in the highest court of the State of Montana[.]"
        Rodriguez argues that his original six-year deferred imposition of sentence is illegal
 because it should have been a three-year deferred sentence. He puts forth that his counsel
 was ineffective. Rodriguez contends that the Cascade County District Court lacked
 statutory authority to impose restitution. He posits that the District Court "deprived
 Rodriguez of his Double Jeopardy and Liberty Interest rights when it denied him a
 meaningfuln opportunity to be heard, his right to a fundamentally fair process, his right to
 not be placed at a disadvantage, when it revoked Rodriguez's sentence and resentenced
 him[.]"
        Rodriguez is currently serving concurrent terms of ten years with five years
 suspended for felony burglary and felony tampering with a witness after the District Court
 revoked the original deferred imposition of a six-year sentence.'

  In 2016, through counsel, Rodriguez appealed his sentence upon revocation. State v. Rodriguez,
 No. DA 16-0353, 2018 MT 241N, 2018 Mont. LEXIS 326 (Sept. 25, 2018) (Rodriguez I).
 Rodriguez has another consecutive prison sentence for which he appealed in 2018. See State v.
 Rodriguez, 2021 MT 65, 403 Mont. 360, 483 P.3d 1080.
       As Rodriguez references, this Court recently addressed these same arguments last
year. See Rodriguez v. Salmonsen, No. OP 22-0692, Order (Mont. Dec. 20, 2022)
(Rodriguez II). We determined that Rodriguez's arguments lack merit. Furthermore,
Rodriguez is precluded under Montana law from challenging his sentence upon revocation
through a petition for habeas corpus relief. Section 46-22-101(2), MCA.
       Rodriguez never had a three-year deferred imposition of sentence. Last year, we
stated: "Rodriguez provides no evidence that the court originally imposed a deferred
sentence of three years. Upon review of the transcript, the October 19, 2010 sentencing
hearing reflects a deferred imposition of six years, to give Rodriguez the opportunity to be
employed, to be with his children, and to pay his restitution." Rodriguez II, at 2. We add
that his attached transcript reveals that he requested a three-year sentence at his sentencing
hearing.   Rodriguez caimot collaterally attack his convictions or his sentence upon
revocation by positing that the District Court erred during his criminal proceedings.
Sections 46-22-101(1), and 46-22-101(2), MCA.
       We have explained why Rodriguez was procedurally and time barred.
               Rodriguez has not demonstrated illegal incarceration. Section 46-22-
       101(1), MCA. In 2015, contrary to Rodriguez's claim, the court revoked his
       deferred imposition of sentence due to many violations, not for failure to pay
       restitution, as he alleges. "The violations included solicitation, aggravated
       promotion of prostitution, and sexual intercourse without consent—among
       others." Rodriguez [I], ¶ 5. . . .
               Rodriguez brings his claims too late to this Court and through the
       wrong remedy of habeas corpus. Any challenge to the court's imposition of
       restitution should have been raised in a direct appeal. Any claim about
       ineffective assistance of trial counsel should have been raised in a timely
       petition for postconviction relief in the sentencing court.

Rodriguez II, at 2.

       Rodriguez has exhausted these remedies with this Court. The doctrine of i'es
judicata is typically inapplicable in habeas corpus proceedings. Montgomery v. State, 2016
MT 169, ¶ 11, 384 Mont. 120, 375 P.3d 403. We point to the exception, applicable here.

                                              2
      We have stated that "Hes judicata cannot be applied in such a manner as to
      deprive [a petitioner] of the right to file a post-conviction procedure.
      However, res judicata can be used to bar the rehearing of issues already
      litigated under the rule in Sanders." Coleman [v. Statej, 194 Mont. [428,]
      438, 633 P.2d [624,] 630 (citing Sanders [v. United States], 373 U.S. [1,] 15,
      83 S. Ct. [1068,] 1077). See Dawson v. State, 2000 MT 219, ¶ 162, 301
      Mont. 135, 10 P.3d 49 ("The doctrine of res judicata may also pose a
      procedural bar to postconviction relief."). [(Emphasis added.)]

Montgomery, ¶ 11.      We conclude that the doctrine of res judicata applies because
Rodriguez continues to raise arguments already litigated.
       We caution Rodriguez to refrain from filing another petition for habeas corpus relief
with this Court. Therefore,
       IT IS ORDERED that Rodriguez's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED
and DISMISSED.
       The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to
Juan Anastasio Rodrigu5personally.
       DATED this 2r       day of May, 2023.

                                                               Chief Justice

                                                                    11( 2
                                                                 Justices