Court Opinion

ID: 9382884
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-28 22:05:26.344223+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:42.339935
License: Public Domain

GiuGINAL                                          03/28/2023

            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA                                Case Number: OP 23-0175

                                       OP 23-0175
                                                                          FILED
TALON PALLISTER,
                                                                           MAR 2 8 2023
                                                                        Bovw-n G , .!Etr
             Petitioner,                                              Ci~         lren   C_,.ourt
                                                                         State of Montana

       v.
                                                                   ORDER
MONTANA FIFTFI JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT, BEAVERHEAD COUNTY, THE
HONORABLE LUKE BERGER, PRESIDING,

              Respondent.

      Petitioner Talon Pallister seeks a writ of supervisory control directing the Fifth
Judicial District Court, Beaverhead County, to hold a hearing on Pallister's motion to
dismiss pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S. Ct. 2674 (1978), in its Cause
No. DC-22-33.
      Supervisory control is an extraordinary remedy that is sometimes justified when
urgency or emergency factors exist making the normal appeal process inadequate, when
the case involves purely legal questions, and when the other court is proceeding under a
mistake of law and is causing a gross injustice, constitutional issues of state-wide
importance are involved, or, in a criminal case, the other court has granted or denied a
motion to substitute a judge. M. R. App. P. 14(3). Whether supervisory control is
appropriate is a case-by-case decision. Stokes v. Mont. Thirteenth Judicial Dist. Court,
2011 MT 182, ¶ 5, 361 Mont. 279, 259 P.3d 754 (citations omitted). Consistent with Rule
14(3), it is the Court's practice to refrain from exercising supervisory control when the
petitioner has an adequate remedy of appeal. E.g., Buckles v. Seventh judicial Dist. Court,
No. OP 16-0517, 386 Mont. 393, 386 P.3d 545 (table) (Oct. 18, 2016); Lichte v. Mont.
Eighteenth Judicial Dist. Court, No. OP 16-0482, 385 Mont. 540, 382 P.3d 868 (table)
(Aug. 24, 2016).
       Pallister offers no argument as to why the normal appeal process would be
inadequate in this case. He thus has not met the threshold requirements for consideration
of a petition for writ of supervisory control under M. R. App. P. 14(3).
       IT IS THEFORE ORDERED that the petition for writ of supervisory control is
DENIED and DISMISSED.
       The Clerk is directed to provide immediate notice of this Order to counsel for
Petitioner, all counsel of record in the Fifth Judicial District Court, Beaverhead County,
Cause No. DC-1-20214026, and the Honorable Luke Berger, presiding.
       DATED this LI day of March, 2023.

                                                                           e°'   Cldemm••••••'....IZO

                                                                  Justices

                                             2