Court Opinion

ID: 9386446
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-12 15:06:27.814738+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:06.504461
License: Public Domain

ORM AL                                          04/11/2023

            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA                                Case Number: DA 23-0019

                                        DA 23-0019

 STATE OF MONTANA,
                                                                         APR 1 1 2023
                                                                       Bowen G          ,ocej
                                                                          k —          - Court
                                                                        State or :vlontana
              Plaintiff and Appellee,
       v.
                                                                    ORDER
 KEITH EUGENE DOYLE,

              Defendant and Appellant.

       Keith Eugene Doyle moves this Court for appointment of counsel and to rescind
this Court's prior Order. On March 6, 2023, this Court returned Doyle's opening brief
because it did not conform to the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure, and gave him
thirty days to comply. Instead, Doyle filed the aforementioned motion. He states that "the
Court's Order has, 'effectively transferred the legal practitioner's statutory obligation to
the untrained and unsuspecting pro se litigant,'" quoting State v. Adams, 2002 MT 202,
¶ 16, 311 Mont. 202, 54 P.3d 50. He further states that the submission of his initial brief
"should have been sufficient as it wasH"
       Doyle is appealing the December 19, 2022 denial of his "Motion in the Nature of
Writ of Error Corarn Nobis," entered by District Court in Butte-Silver Bow County. The
Court is familiar with Doyle's history. Doyle was convicted of deliberate homicide by
accountability and sentenced in 2005, and appealed. State v. Keith Doyle, 2007 MT 125,
337 Mont. 308, 160 P.3d 516 (Doyle 1). He appealed the denial of his petition for
postconviction relief. Doyle v. State, No. DA 08-0218, 2009 MT 105N, 2009 Mont. LEXIS
114 (Mar. 31, 2009) (Doyle II). Since then, Doyle has repeatedly sought relief with this
Court. See Doyle v. 0 'Fallon, No. OP 08-0628, Order (Mont. Mar. 11, 2009) (Doyle III);
Doyle v. Frink, No. OP 13-0290, Order (Mont. Jun. 5, 2013) (Doyle IV); Doyle v. Frink,
No. OP 13-0325, Order (Mont. Jun. 5, 2013) (Doyle V); Doyle v. State, No. DA 16-0167,
2017 MT 90N, 2017 Mont. LEXIS 171 (Apr. 18, 2017) (Doyle VI); Doyle v. McTighe, No.
OP 19-0356, Order (Mont. Jul. 3, 2019) (Doyle VII); Doyle v. State, No. OP 22-0052, Order
(Mont. Feb. 15, 2022) (Doyle VIII); Doyle v. Salmonsen, No. OP 22-0119, Order (Mont.
Apr. 19, 2022) (Doyle IX); and Doyle v. Montana Second Judicial Dist. Ct., No.
OP 22-0643, Order (Mont. Dec. 6, 2022) (Doyle X).
         Doyle's motion is improper.      Seventeen years after his conviction, his recent
proceeding is considered postconviction relief. There is no right to the appointment of
counsel in a postconviction proceeding, although a court may order the assignrnent of
counsel under the circumstances outlined in § 46-8-104, MCA.                 Doyle has not
demonstrated that extraordinary circumstances exist to justify appointment of counsel,
pursuant to § 46-8-104(3), MCA. His reference to Adams is misapplied because that case
dealt with an attorney's invalid withdrawal of representation. Adams, ¶ 17. Doyle
represented himself in the District Court. Doyle is not entitled to rescission of this Court's
Order.
         Further, we conclude Doyle's appeal is not properly before this Court. The writ of
coram nobis has not existed in Montana for more than eleven years. We explained this last
year when we denied his writ of supervisory control:
         Furthermore, Doyle's arguments are in error because, since October 1, 2011,
         coram nobis is not available as a postconviction remedy. The Montana
         Legislature consolidated common law statutory remedies to challenge a
         sentence, conviction, or illegal incarceration under Title 46, Chapter 21, for
         postconviction proceedings. In re McNair, 189 Mont. 321, 323, 615 P.2d
         916, 917 (1980); State v. Barrack, 267 Mont. 154, 159-60, 882 P.2d. 1028,
         1031 (1994). Various bills and writs, including the writ of coram nobis, were
         abolished from Montana jurisprudence by M. R. Civ. P. 60(e).

Doyle X, Order, at 2.
         In a 2019 Order, this Court imposed a motion for leave requirement upon Doyle
before filing "any original petition challenging his 2005 conviction and sentence with this
Court[.]" Doyle VII, at 4. We now expand that requirement to include a direct appeal as
well as an original proceeding. Therefore,
         IT IS ORDERED that:
         1. Doyle's appeal is DISMISSED sua sponte;

                                               2
      2. Doyle's Motion to Appoint Counsel and Rescind Previous Order of the Court is
         DENIED, as moot;
      3. Henceforth, prior to filing any original petition or direct appeal challenging his
         2005 conviction and sentence with this Court, Doyle is directed to file a motion
          for leave to file the pleading. The motion must be sworn under oath before a
          notary public, not exceed three pages in length, and make a preliminary showing
          that the motion has merit and meets the criteria to state a prima facie case under
         M. R. App. P. 14(5). Only when this Court has reviewed the motion and issued
          an order granting leave to file may the Clerk of this Court file the petition or
          appeal. Any other pleading that Doyle seeks to file shall be rejected forthwith,
          and the Clerk shall inform Doyle; and
      4. This matter is CLOSED as of this Order's date.
      The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel
of record and to Keith Eugene Doyle personally.
                        \v"-,
       DATED this 1 1 -d-ay of April, 2023.

                                                               Chief Justice

                                                       LA6        /14
                                                                 Justices

                                             3