Court Opinion

ID: 9386447
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-12 15:06:28.894793+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:06.500490
License: Public Domain

n ORIGINAL
           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
                                                                                               04/11/2023

                                                                                           Case Number: DA 23-0174

                                       DA 23-0174
                                                                         FLED
 STATE OF MONTANA,                                                        A?R 1 1 2n23
                                                                        BowF,n G
                                                                            -
             Plaintiff and Appellee,                                               i,n1"
                                                                         State of Vlontana

      v.                                                           ORDER

 JONATHAN J. WORK,

             Defendant and Appellant.

      Jonathan J. Work petitions this Court for an out-of-time appeal, indicating that he
failed to file a timely appeal because his "mental disability stopped [him] from
understanding and responding reasonably to the entire criminal process . . . ." He explains
that he was sent to the Montana State Hospital after sentencing, and then with the onset of
the COVID-19 pandemic, he was denied any access to the library and legal resources.
After being placed in the Montana State Prison recently, he learned that he should not have
taken "a plea deal" and instead requested a jury trial. He puts forth that he learned about
appealing his sentence after his prison placement. Work challenges the length of his
sentence and contends that his due process rights were violated. Work requests a trial and
reduction of his sentence.
      M. R. App. P. 4(6) allows this Court to grant an out-of-time appeal "[i]n the
infrequent harsh case and under extraordinary circumstances amounting to a gross
miscarriage of justice[.]" "Extraordinary circumstances do not include mere mistake,
inadvertence, or excusable neglect." M. R. App. P. 4(6).
      This Court is familiar with Work's criminal history and his arguments. On June 27,
2019, the State of Montana charged Work with felony stalking (first offense when the
offender violates an order of protection). On February 18, 2020, the Gallatin County
District Court committed Work to the Department of Health and Human Services for felony
stalking, pursuant to § 45-5-220(1), MCA (2019), for a five-year term, unsuspended. The
court awarded Work 255 days of credit for time served.
       Late last year, Work sought habeas corpus relief, challenging his felony offense,
requesting a trial, and explaining that he was mentally ill at the time. This Court denied
Work's petition for habeas corpus relief, stating that his sentence was valid. Work v. State
and Salmonsen, No. OP 22-0613, Order (Mont. Nov. 15, 2022).
       Work was charged with a felony after the Montana Legislature revised the
       statute in question in 2019. Section 45-5-220(4)(b), MCA, provides that "for
       a first offense when the offender violated any order of protection, . . . , the
       offender shall be imprisoned in the state prison for a term not to exceed 5
       years or fined an amount not to exceed $10,000, or both." The effective date
       of this statute was May 2, 2019. 2019 Mont. Laws Ch. 255, § 2.
               We reviewed the Protection Order, filed June 6, 2019, in the Ravalli
       County Justice Court, as well as the Protection Order Return of Service.
       Work committed the offense after the effective date of May 2, 2019, and
       § 45-5-220(4)(b), MCA, applies to him. The initial Protection Order Return
       of Service was served on Work in Missoula on May 25, 2019. Work
       contends that he was not served with a copy of the Protection Order, issued
       on June 4, 2019, and set to expire on June 4, 2022. Work brings any claim
       about service of protection orders or the corresponding dates too late and
       through the wrong remedy to this Court. Section 46-22-101(2), MCA.

Order, at 1-2.
       We acknowledge that Work tries to explain the delay in seeking an appeal. Work's
arrival at the State Hospital before the onset of the pandemic most likely contributed to a
delay in seeking a timely appeal. However, we observe that in 2022, Work filed a petition
for habeas corpus relief with this Court, instead of seeking an appeal.
       We conclude that Work is not entitled to a petition for an out-of-time appeal. Work
has not established extraordinary circumstances that failure to allow a late appeal would
lead to a gross miscarriage of justice. M. R. App. P. 4(6). Accordingly,
       IT IS ORDERED that Work's Petition for an Out-of-Time Appeal is DENIED and
DISMISSED.
       IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is CLOSED as of this Order's date.
                                              2
      The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel
of record and to Jonathan J. Work personally.
                     , 1---N---.
       DATED this I \ day of April, 2023.

                                                    ,, ..1/7,g,„),i,
                                                              Chief Justice

                                                       (/? (-2-ia
                                                                Justices

                                            3