Court Opinion

ID: 9840994
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-20 20:08:40.040834+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:31:13.443903
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                               ORIGINAL                                           08/08/2023
                                                                                                  09/20/2023
                                                                                           Bowen Greenwood
                                                                                           CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT
                                                                                                STATE OF MONTANA
            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
                                                                                           Case Number: OP 23-0402

                                          OP 23-0402

 NATHAN KING,                                                              AUG 0 8 2023
                                                                        Bovv o    r E!..& nwood
                                                                      Clerk of Supreme Court
              Petitioner and Appellant.                                  State of Montana

       v.
                                                                      ORDER
 PETE BLUDWORTH, WARDEN,
 CROSSROADS CORRECTION CENTER,

              Respondent and Appellee.

       Nathan King has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, indicating that his
incarceration is illegal. He states that he recently learned that he "suffer[s] from dyslexia"
and that this "information was unavailable for [his previous] appeal efforts. . . ." King
maintains that he was unfairly tried and asserts an affirmative defense argument of
justifiable use of force. He states that "[his] [previous] filings should not count against him
in any way." He asserts that he is innocent and requests assignment of "counsel for this
appeal."
       In September 2011, a Cascade County jury found King guilty of felony deliberate
homicide for killing Christopher Terrey, and felony aggravated assault of his life partner.
King received two consecutive sentences totaling 120 years in the Montana State Prison
along with parole eligibility restrictions.
       King appealed and raised two issues. State v. King, 2013 MT 139, 370 Mont. 277,
304 P.3d 1 (King 1). King contended the District Court erred by excluding "evidence of
justifiable use of force as a defense to the charge of deliberate homicidell" King I, 113.
He also contended that the court erred by excluding "evidence of the victim's prior mental
health history, suicide attempts, and cutting behavior, and [that] this exclusion violate[d]
King's Sixth amendment right to compulsory process and confrontation and Fourteenth
Amendment right to due process[.]" King I, ¶ 4 (footnote omitted). This Court rejected
King's contentions. King I, ¶¶ 22-40. We held:
       Contrary to King's assertion, however, the District Court did not preclude a
       self-defense or justifiable use of force in defense of another claim for "the
       mere fact" that they were inconsistent with an accident defense. As already
       explained, there was nothing in the District Court's pretrial order that
       prevented King frorn raising a self-defense claim. The order only provided
       that prior to a jury instruction on self-defense, there would need to be
       "sufficient facts in the record to find that although the defendant purposely
       or knowingly caused the death of another he was justified in doing so because
       he reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent
       imminent death or serious bodily harm to himself. . . ."

King I, ¶ 24. The District Court also pointed out as a matter of law that as it pertained to
the justifiable use of force in defense of another claim, "the defense was not available in a
situation involving only two people." King I, ¶ 27. "The court therefore concluded that
King's act of killing Terrey could not be legally justified on the grounds that King had to
use deadly force against Terrey to keep Terrey from killing himself." King I, ¶ 27. This
Court could not reach the second issue because "King has not referenced any place in the
record where he objected on constitutional grounds to the exclusion of the evidence." King
  ¶ 38. We affirmed King's conviction.
       In February 2014, King filed a petition for postconviction relief with the District
Court. The District Court issued an Order dismissing King's petition in May 2015. King
timely filed a notice of appeal. King v. State, No. DA 15-0374, 2016 MT 85N, 2016 Mont.
LEXIS 310 (Apr. 5, 2016) (King II). King raised four issues on appeal but this Court only
addressed the issue preserved for appeal. King II, ¶ 3. King contended "that his attorney's
failure to highlight selected portions of the victim's mental health records constituted
ineffective assistance of counsel because it prevented those portions from being adrnitted
into evidence[.]" King      5. We affirmed the District Court, concluding that the District
Court reviewed and decided "that the records were inadmissible[,]" and that "King did not
receive ineffective assistance of counsel:" King II, ¶ 7.

                                             2
       While this appeal was pending, in September 2015, King petitioned this Court for a
writ of supervisory control, asking this Court to "jp]reside over his trial
proceedings . . .' and recent postconviction matter." King v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct.,
No. OP 15-0505, Order, at 1 (Mont. Sept. 1, 2015) (King III). King requested reversal of
his 2011 conviction and "`dismiss[al] of the charges on the grounds of unconstitutional
proceedings.' King III, at 1. We denied King's Petition.
      This Court has already addressed the arguments King attempts to raise in his current
Petition. King I, King II, and King III. King has had his day in court. His recent diagnosis
does not change that. King's Petition is not a substitute for another appeal. King is
precluded from raising these issues by way of habeas corpus when he has exhausted the
remedy of appeal. Section 46-22-101(2), MCA. King is not entitled to relief. Therefore,
      IT IS ORDERED that King's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and
DISMISSED.
      IT IS ORDERED that King's request for assistance of counsel is DENIED, as moot.
      The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to
Nathan King personally.
      DATED this 7        day of August, 2023.

                                                                  Chief Justice

                                                      4:9   00 11 .* •-mr•fsgrr -
                                                             •H".                   •.   •

                                                                              (;)

                                                                     Justices

                                             3