Court Opinion

ID: 9964850
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-30 23:05:51.107472+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:44.407246
License: Public Domain

ORIGINAL                                     04/30/2024

            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA                             Case Number: OP 24-0246

                                       OP 24-0246

ROBERT EUGENE WILLIAMS,

              Petitioner,

       v.
                                                                    ORDER
SHERYL ZIEGLER, Commander, Missoula                                           F LF
County Detention Facility,
                                                                               APR 3 0 2024
              Respondent.                                                    Bowen Greerrwood
                                                                           Clerk of Supreme Court
                                                                              State of Montana

       Robert Eugene Williams, via counsel, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus, alleging he is unlawfully detained. On April 17, 2024, the Fourth Judicial District
Court, Missoula County, Hon. Robert L. Deschamps, III, presiding, held a hearing on its
Order to Show Cause as to why Williams should not be found in contempt of a previous
order of that court that ordered Williams to return $75,000 that he removed from a trust or
trusts of which he was Trustee. The court ultimately found Williams in contempt and
ordered him taken into custody until $75,000 is deposited with the Office of the Missoula
County Clerk of Court. The District Court issued a written order to this effect that same
day.
       Williams now challenges that order on petition for writ of habeas corpus. He alleges
that he has filed for bankruptcy and he does not have $75,000. He argues that Judge
Deschamps has "essentially put [him] in debtor's prison because he cannot pay this debt."
He further alleges that the court had insufficient evidence to find that Williams had any of
these funds in his possession.
       A contempt proceeding may be reviewed under a petition for writ of habeas corpus
if the person seeking review is incarcerated at the time of filing the petition for writ of
habeas corpus. Gillispie v. Sherlock, 279 Mont. 21, 929 P.2d 199 (1996) (citing Crane v.
State, 200 Mont. 280, 283, 650 P.2d 794, 796 (1982). Since Williams is presently
incarcerated, we review the contempt proceeding at issue here. Our review of contempt
proceedings is limited to whether the lower court had jurisdiction to issue the contempt
order and whether there is evidence to support the order. Gillispie, 279 Mont. at 24, 929
P.2d at 200 (citing State ex rel. Foss v. District Court, 216 Mont. 327, 701 P.2d 342
(1985)). In this case, Williams challenges whether there is evidence to support the court's
order.
         We conclude that Williams has not met his burden of demonstrating a prima facie
case for habeas corpus relief as required by Miller v. Eleventh Jud. Dist. Ct., 2007 MT 58,
¶ 14, 336 Mont. 207, 154 P.3d 1186. In this case, Williams has made no showing of a
violation of the automatic bankruptcy stay. Although Williams offers some checking
account statements to this Court, he does not assert that this is his sole asset nor provide
verification of these exhibits. Furthermore, his petition cites to no legal authority in support
of his arguments. M. R. App. P. 14(5)(b)(iii). He has therefore failed to persuade this
Court that he is entitled to relief.
         IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is
DENIED.
         The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to all counsel of record and to
Robert Eugene Williams personally.
         DATED this               of April, 2024.

                                                                  Justices
                                               2