Court Opinion

ID: 9965275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-01 21:08:16.86218+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:49.292975
License: Public Domain

j ORIGINAL                                          05/01/2024

            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
                                                                                         Case Number: OP 24-0117

                                         OP 24-0117

 CHARLES DAVID AMENT,

              Petitioner.

       v.
                                                                      ORDER
 BRIEN HEINO, Sheriff, Flathead County
 Detention Center,
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                                      MAY 1 2024
              Respondent.                                                           Bowen Greenwood
                                                                                  Clerk of Supreme Court
                                                                                     St te.. of Montana

       Charles D. Ament has filed a pleading he has captioned "Motion to Refile Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus." Ament asserts that he had been sentenced when this Court
denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus on March 19, 2024. He explains that the
District Court sentenced him five days prior, on March 14, 2024, and he challenges the
lower court's decision, alleging various evidentiary errors. Ament also cites to Miller v.
Eleventh Judicial Dist. Ct., 2007 MT 58, ¶ 14, 336 Mont. 207, 159 P.3d 1186, in support
of his alleged constitutional errors.     We address Ament's motion as a Petition for
Rehearing.
       M. R. App. P. 20(1) provides criteria for rehearing. This Court "will consider a
petition for rehearing presented only upon . . . [t]hat it overlooked some fact material to the
decision[,] . . . or [t]hat its decision conflicts with a statute or controlling decision not
addressed by the supreme court." M. R. App. P. 20(1)(a)(i) and (iii). "Absent clearly
demonstrated exceptional circumstances, the supreme court will not grant petitions for
rehearing of its orders disposing of motions or petitions for extraordinary writs." M. R.
App. P. 20(1)(d).
       Ament has not demonstrated that he is entitled to rehearing.             There are no
exceptional circumstances here. Ament filed his petition for habeas corpus relief on
February 28, 2024, and he did not include any written, sentencing judgment because it had
not been issued at that time. Ament, as a petitioner, did not meet his burden with supporting
documentation about illegal restraint or an illegal sentence and that a writ should issue.
Miller, ¶ 14. This Court had no information about his sentencing date. "Furthermore, 'Mt
is not this Court's job to conduct legal research on his behalf11' " State v. Gomez, 2007
MT 111, ¶ 33, 337 Mont. 219, 158 P.3d 442 (citing Johansen v. Dep't. of Nat. Res. &
Conservation, 1998 MT 51, ¶ 24, 288 Mont. 39, 955 P.2d 653 (citations omitted)).
       As we stated in our Order denying Ament's petition last month, "Ament brings his
various claims . . . through the wrong remedy." Ament v. Heino, No. OP 24-0117, Order,
at 1 (Mont. Mar. 19, 2024). He still has not provided a copy of the written sentencing
judgment. He has not demonstrated an illegal sentence. This Court's decision in Miller
dealt with pretrial release on bail, and Ament cannot reach any claims of constitutional
violations through the remedy of habeas corpus relief. Miller, ¶¶ 7-13; Gates v. Missoula
Cnty. Comm 'rs, 235 Mont. 261, 262, 766 P.3d 884, 884-85 (1988).
       Ament's immediate remedy is to seek an appeal of the Flathead County District
Court's Sentence and Judgment with this Court on or before May 13, 2024. M. R. App. P.
4(5)(b)(i); § 46-20-104(1), MCA. Ament may file a motion for appointment of counsel as
well. Any claims concerning constitutional violations or other errors could be raised in an
appeal where the entire record would be available to this Court. Accordingly,
       IT IS ORDERED that Ament's Petition for Rehearing is DENIED and
DISMISSED.
      The Clerk is directed to provide a copy to counsel of record, to the Appellate
Defender Division, and t9 Charles D. Ament personally.
       DATED this —        clay of-Apr-ig 2024.

                                             2
     40;1 m11-1-t

     /4'
    tLit),5L-Jv(
           Justices

3