Court Opinion

ID: 9401928
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-14 17:12:16.176455+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:56.218609
License: Public Domain

ORIGINAL                                            06/14/2023

            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA                                   Case Number: DA 22-0189

                                         DA 22-0189
                                                                      FILED
 DANNY LEE WARNER, JR.,                                               JUN 1 4 2023
                                                                    Bowen Greenwood
                                                                  Clerk of Supreme Court
                                                                     State of Montana
             Petitioner and Appellant,

       v.                                                            ORDER

 STATE OF MONTANA,

             Respondent and Appellee.

       Danny Lee Warner has filed a Motion for Reconsideration or Rehearing of the May
10, 2023 Order, dismissing his motion to take judicial notice, as moot. We deem his motion
a petition for rehearing, pursuant to M. R. App. P. 20, because a motion for reconsideration
does not exist in either the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure or Appellate Procedure.
Nelson v. Driscoll, 285 Mont. 355, 359, 948 P.2d 256, 258 (1997). The State of Montana
responds in opposition.
       Warner contends that this Court's prior Order is erroneous. Citing to the Montana
Rules of Evidence, he advances "clear error" because, pursuant to M. R. E. 201 and 202,
he should be able to file more documents after briefing has been completed. Warner
concludes that this Court is operating under a mistake of law. M. R. App. P. 20(1)(a).
       The State requests denial of Warner's Motion for Reconsideration or Rehearing.
The State puts forth that Warner should not be allowed to make factual or legal arguments
to support his claim through a post-briefing motion. The State contends that Warner's
request is disingenuous because he does not move this Court to take judicial notice of facts
from the record but uses an after-briefing motion to bring in facts not part of the record.
       As an appellate court of review, this Court may only review the District Court record
as well as the issues presented and argued in the filed briefs. M. R. App. P. 8(1) and 12.
As explained before, Warner's filings after the completion of briefing and classification of
this case have been improper. Therefore,
      IT IS ORDERED that Warner's Motion for Reconsideration or Rehearing is
DENIED.
      The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel
of record and to Danny Lee Warner Jr. personally.
      DATED this Wday of June, 2023.
                                                For the Court,

                                                              Chief Justice

                                            2