Court Opinion

ID: 9364012
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-18 01:05:46.576262+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:35.359027
License: Public Domain

>           V... 141i
                                                                                             01/17/2023
                             AI=

             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA                                Case Number: OP 22-0753

                            OP 22-0753, OP 23-0007, OP 23-0027

 CHRISTOPHER L. HUGHES-CANAL,
                                                                             AN 17 2023
              Petitioner,                                                              ,LInvvood
                                                                           Bow St.,preMe Cotift
                                                                                ot
        v.                                                               Ole'
                                                                            S t ate
                                                                                    of Montana

                                                                      ORDER
 SGT. BRAGG, Lewis and Clark County
 Detention Center,

               Respondent.

        Christopher L. Hughes-Canal has filed three recent petitions for a writ of habeas
corpus. We have consolidated the petitions in this order, and amend the caption to indicate
the facility where Hughes-Canal is restrained. Section 46-22-201(1)(c), MCA.
        Hughes-Canal raises issues concerning his pending criminal proceedings in the First
Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County. He initially contends the Department of
Corrections incorrectly calculated his prior five-year sentence and that his incarceration is
illegal because he should have discharged that sentence, imposed on June 28, 2017, on
January 28, 2022. Secondly, he contends he was charged on August 22, 2021, with partner
or family member assault (PFMA), illegally. He argues "[t]here was no preliminary
hearing held to verify there was sufficient evidence to file it in district [court][.]" Lastly,
Hughes-Canal argues his bail of $50,000 is excessive for "non-violent" PFMA, and adds
he has "no history of absconding and no probable reason for such a high bond."
        We requested and reviewed the District Court's register of actions for these cases.
The State charged Hughes-Canal in 2016 with PFMA, 4th offense. An Amended Judgment
and Commitment, filed July 27, 2017, convicted Hughes-Canal of PFMA, 3rd offense.
While Hughes-Canal is correct he received a five-year sentence with three years suspended
on June 28, 2017, the State filed a petition to revoke his suspended sentence on August 27,
2021.    The District Court issued an arrest warrant, and Hughes-Canal appeared on
September 14, 2021. The court held an admit/deny hearing in October 2021, and the court
continued the evidentiary hearing, on unopposed motions, until December 21, 2022.
       In his other case, the State charged Hughes-Canal with PFMA, 2nd offense, in
September 2021. The court held an arraignment for the offense on September 14, 2021.
In November 2022, the court issued an arrest warrant on the State's motion to revoke order
of release and redetermine bail. The court set bond at $50,000, after Hughes-Canal was
served with the arrest warrant. The court also held a bail modification hearing on
November 28, 2022, and set a hearing on Hughes-Canal's request for a new attorney. The
court held'a Gallagher hearing' in all cases on January 5, 2023.
       Hughes-Canal is not entitled to relief with this Court. He was serving a suspended
sentence when he was arrested in August 2021, and no error exists with his sentence
calculation. He did not discharge his five-year sentence. In his second matter, the State
sought leave to charge Hughes-Canal with PFMA, which the District Court granted based
on the evidence presented. This Court will not considet the alleged victim's statement as
evidence for Hughes-Canal's argument of an illegal charge of PFMA. Lastly, we conclude
Hughes-Canal has not demonstrated his bail is excessive. A district court has the discretion
to grant or deny release and bail as well to set conditions. Grafft v. Mont. Fourth Judicial
Dist. Ct., 2021 MT 201, ¶ 11, 405 Mont. 192, 492 P.3d 1213. Hughes-Canal's bail was
imposed after the court revoked his initial release, and the court has entertained a motion
for bail modification. We note that a 3rd offense of PFMA is classified as a violent offense.
Section 46-23-502 (13)(a), MCA.
       Hughes-Canal has not demonstrated illegal incarceration or detention. Section
46-22-101(1), MCA. He is not entitled to release or dismissal of charges. He has counsel
to represent him and to address his concerns in his underlying proceedings, and he should
refrain from filing pleadings on his own behalf with this Court when he is represented by
counsel. M. R. App. P. 10(1)(c); State v. Samples, 2005 MT 210, ¶ 15, 328 Mont. 242, 119

  See State v. Gallagher, 1998 MT 70, 288 Mont. 180, 955 P.2d 1371 (the court holds a hearing
concerning the defendant's complaints about counsel).

                                             2
P.3d 1191. He has the remedy of appealing any conviction and sentence to this Court after
the District Court issues final judgments. Accordingly,
      IT IS ORDERED that Hughes-Canal's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is
DENIED and DISMISSED.
      The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to provide a copy of this Order to: the
Honorable Michael F. McMahon, District Court Judge; Angie Sparks, Clerk of District
Court, Lewis and Clark County, under Cause Nos. BDC-2016-459 and BDC-2021-415;
Fallon Stanton, County Attorney's Office; Steven Scott, Defense Counsel; counsel of
record, and Christopher L. Hughes-Canal personally.
      DATED this j 7 etc ay of January, 2023.

                                                               Justices