Court Opinion

ID: 9898762
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-15 00:08:35.408321+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:30.672201
License: Public Domain

u ORIGINAL                                                   11/14/2023

            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
                                                                                              Case Number: OP 23-0626

                                       OP 23-0626

 DONALD GRANT,                                                      NOV 14 2023
                                                                 Bowen Greenwood
                                                               Clerk cf E'.:;7-2rerne Court
              Petitioner,                                         State of Montana

       v.
                                                                    ORDER
 JIM SALMONSEN, Warden,
 State of Montana,

             Respondent.

       Donald Grant petitions self-represented for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. He alleges
that the charging documents to commence his prosecution or "these informations, of every
kind, are confined by the Constitutional law to mere misdemeanors only[.]" Citing
Blackstone's Commentaries and 19 th century case law, Grant claims that his conviction is
void and that "the 'King's Bench' [now] is codified Constitutional law out of the United
States Supreme Court, and in use in the Colony(s) which [later] became the United States
of America." He requests his immediate release from prison due to illegal incarceration
because the State of Montana commenced his criminal prosecution via an Information in
the Twentieth Judicial District Court, Lake County.
       In 1982, the State charged Grant by Information with felony deliberate homicide
and felony attempted deliberate homicide. In February 1983, the District Court sentenced
Grant to 100 years for deliberate homicide, 40 years for attempted deliberate homicide, and
an additional term of ten years on each charge for use of a firearm, the sentences on each
count to run consecutively. The court imposed a twenty-two-year parole ineligibility
restriction. Grant did not appeal.
       Grant cites § 1-1-105, MCA, as a basis for his argurnents. That section reads: "The
organic law is the constitution of government and is altogether written. Other written laws
are denominated statutes. The written law of this state is therefore contained in its
constitution and statutes and in the constitution and statutes of the United States." Within
that same title and chapter, a statute provides that Montana law should take precedence.
"In this state there is no common law in any case where the law is declared by statute."
Section 1-1-108, MCA. Under § 1-1-109, MCA, "[t]he common law, of England . . . is the
rule of decision in all the courts of this state[,]" as long as it is not "inconsistent with" the
laws of constitution of this State.
       Montana's Legislature has declared by statute that an information is one method to
charge an offender with a felony criminal offense. Section 46-11-101(3), MCA. This
Court has held that Montana statutes offer four methods to commence a prosecution in this
state, one of which is "an information after leave of court has been granted[.]" State v.
Montgomery, 2015 MT 151, ¶ 11, 379 Mont. 353, 350 P.3d 77; § 46-11-101(3), MCA.
‘" [A] defendant is not entitled to any specific procedure.'" Montgomery, ¶ 11 (citing State
v. Haller, 2013 MT 199, ¶ 8, 371 Mont. 86, 306 P.3d 338) (internal citation omitted). If
the ,State commences prosecution by filing an application and an affidavit that identifies
supporting evidence demonstrating probable cause, the district court has subject matter
jurisdiction to proceed "over the felonies as stated in Mont. Const. art. VII, § 4(1) and
§ 3-5-302(1)(a), MCA[.]" Montgomery, ¶ 11.
       We conclude that Grant is not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus. The State of
Montana commenced his felony prosecution according to Montana's Constitution and
statutes by filing an application and supporting affidavit for leave of court to charge Grant
by information. Section 46-11-201(1), MCA (1981). See also Montgomery, IN 9-11;
Mont. Const. art. II, § 20(1); §§ 46-11-101(3), and 46-11-102(1), MCA. The District Court
had subject matter jurisdiction, and the Judgrnent is not void. Grant has not demonstrated
illegal incarceration. Section 46-22-101(1), MCA.

                                               2
      IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Grant's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is
DENIED and DISMISSED.
      IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is CLOSED as of this Order's date.
      The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to
Donald Grant personally.10,.
      DATED this     Lk day of November, 2023.

                                                           Chief Justice

                                                                  -

                                                             Justices

                                          .3