Court Opinion

ID: 9909317
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-12 23:05:24.715266+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:43.798415
License: Public Domain

ORIGINAL                       12/12/2023

            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA                                Case Number: OP 23-0603

                                        OP 23-0603

 DONALD W. PULST,

              Petitioner,

     v.                                                               ORDER

 STATE OF MONTANA,

              Respondent.
                                                                          PILED
                                                                          DEC 12 2023
                                                                        Bowen GreeNtwood
                                                                      Clerk of Supreme
                                                                                       Court
       Donald W. Pulst has filed a "Reply for Reconsideration" of thisseant Maöber 31,
2023 Order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He states that we put forth
two errors: (1) his first name was wrongly stated in the Order, and (2) he is not entitled to
good time credit. We deem his pleading a Petition for Rehearing, pursuant to M. R. App.
P. 20(1).
       M. R. App. P. 20(1) provides criteria for rehearing. "Absent clearly demonstrated
exceptional circumstances, the supreme court will not grant petitions for rehearing of its
orders disposing of motions or petitions for extraordinary writs." M. R. App. P. 20(1)(d).
       Pulst points out that his first name is Donald and not Daniel Wayne, as this Court
mistakenly included in, the Order. We acknowledge that while we had the incorrect first
name, Pulst did receive a copy of our Order. We also stated that "Pulst is not entitled to
good time credit because he committed his offenses well after 1995." Pulst v. State, No.
OP 23-0603, Order (Mont. Oct. 31, 2023). Pulst includes copies of the charging document
for his underlying 2012 criminal case and has highlighted the dates of the offenses, which
reflect 1993 and 1994, respectively. Pulst did not include this Information when he
originally filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in October 2023.
       We conclude that extraordinary circumstances exist to grant rehearing of this
proceeding for Pulst's two claims. M. R. App. P. 20(1)(d). We deem it appropriate to
require a response to Pulst's claim that he is entitled to good time credit, based on the dates
of the offenses, as reflected in his attached Information, and under Montana law.
Therefore,
       IT IS ORDERED that Pulst's Petition for Rehearing is GRANTED and that this
Court's October 31, 2023 Order is RESCINDED as to his claim about good time credit and
the incorrect reference to his first name.
       IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Attorney General or counsel for the DOC is
GRANTED thirty days from the date of this Order in which to prepare, file, and serve a
written response along with any supplementary documentation or sentence calculation.
       The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to
Donald W. Pulst personally.
       DATED this           day of December, 2023.

                                                       ,e1,60,Za
                                                             Chief Justice

                                                 c *         gG     L    ...16      cm

                                                       eif

                                                              Justices

                                             2