Court Opinion

ID: 9396917
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-23 21:07:22.787896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:20.135439
License: Public Domain

ORIGINAL                                     05/23/2023

            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
                                                                                      Case Number: OP 23-0261

                                       OP 23-0261

                                                                           MAY 2 3 2023
 KINGSLEY UROMU-OKPE ARIEGWE,                                           Bowen Greenwood
                                                                      Clerk of Supreme Court
                                                                         State of Montana
              Petitioner,

       v.
                                                                    ORDER
 STATE OF MONTANA, and
 CROSSROADS CORRECTIONAL
 CENTER, WARDEN BLUDWORTH,

              Respondents.

       Self-represented Petitioner Kingsley Uromu-Okpe Ariegwe has filed a verified
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, challenging his 2004 conviction from the Cascade
County District Court and raising ineffectiveness of assistance of counsel claims (IAC).
Ariegwe also moves this Court for appointment of counsel "to represent him in the [] Oral
Argument pursuant to § 46-8-104(1)(d)[, MCA.]" We amend the caption to include the
warden's name and facility where Ariegwe is restrained. Section 46-22-201(1)(c), MCA.
       In March 2004, a jury found Ariegwe guilty of attempted sexual intercourse without
consent and unlawful transactions with children. The District Court sentenced Ariegwe to
the Montana State Prison for a fifty-year term with fifteen years suspended. Through
counsel, he appealed, raising three issues. This Court affirmed "the District Court's denial
of Ariegwe's motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial. We also affirm[ed] the District
Court's denial of Ariegwe's motion for a new trial." State v. Ariegwe, 2007 MT 204, ¶ 182,
338 Mont. 442, 167 P.3d 815 (Ariegwe 1). We reversed and remanded on the last issue of
restitution. Ariegwe I, ITT 176-182.
       Ariegwe sought postconviction relief in the District Court. In March 2011, the
District Court held an evidentiary hearing. The District Court denied his petition for
postconviction relief, and Ariegwe appealed. Ariegwe v. State, 2012 MT 166, 365 Mont.
505, 285, P.3d 424 (Ariegwe 11). This Court affirmed the court's denial and dismissal of
Ariegwe' s petition. Ariegwe        31.
       In 2015, Ariegwe sought habeas corpus "relief from his 2004 conviction and
challenging the effectiveness of all prior counsel." Ariegwe v. Batista and Kirkegard, No.
OP 15-0642, Order (Mont. Aug. 18, 2015) (Ariegwe III). About four years later, Ariegwe
filed a petition for extraordinary relief. We determined that "Ariegwe is relitigating his
conviction, sentence, and prior appeal." Ariegwe v. State and McTighe, No. OP 19-0514,
Order, (Mont. Sept. 24, 2019) (Ariegwe IV).
       In March 2020, Ariegwe filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the District
Court that the court deemed a petition for postconviction relief. The District Court denied
his second petition for postconviction relief, and Ariegwe appealed. Ariegwe v. State, No.
DA 21-0027, 2021 MT 210N, 2021 Mont. LEXIS 653 (Ariegwe V). We sumrnarized his
history of challenging his conviction through habeas corpus with this Court as well as in
federal court. See Ariegwe V, ¶ 5. We affirmed the District Court, concluding that his
claims were time-barred and procedurally barred. Ariegwe V, ¶ 14.
       In his instant Petition, Ariegwe raises seven issues, which are very similar to the
claims raised in his petition for postconviction relief, filed in the District Court three years
ago. He raises four IAC clairns; challenges the District Court's jurisdiction; contends that
the State had false evidence and false testimony; and "his right to equal protection was
violated when he was treated differently from two other 'similarly situated' individuals,
who were later exonerated." See Ariegwe V, ¶ 6.
       We conclude that Ariegwe is not entitled to habeas corpus relief. Section 46-22-
101(2), MCA. As stated before, he is procedurally barred to raise such issues when he has
exhausted the remedy of appeal. Ariegwe 1, Ariegwe III, and Ariegwe IV. This Court has
addressed his IAC claims previously. Ariegwe II, 11 14-30 and Ariegwe V, In 6, 11-13.
Any other issues, such as the court's jurisdiction or an equal protection violation, come too
late and through the wrong rernedy. Ariegwe V, IN 6, 14. Ariegwe is also not entitled to
appointment of counsel or oral argument in this original proceeding. Therefore,

                                               2
      IT IS ORDERED that Ariegwe's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED
and DISMISSED.
      IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ariegwe's Motion for Appointment of Counsel
is DENIED, as moot.
      The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to
Kingsley Uromu-Okpe Ariegwe personally.
                       P
      DATED this           ay of May, 2023.

                                                       "? 6"/2—,

                                                  L-17-",241
                                                             Justices

                                              3