Court Opinion

ID: 9909314
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-12 23:05:14.719676+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:51.541343
License: Public Domain

ORIGINAL                             12/12/2023

           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
                                                                                            Case Number: OP 23-0614

                                         OP 23-0614

 WILLARD DEAN YOUPEE,

              Petitioner,

 v.                                                                   ORDER

 PETE BLUDWORTH, WARDEN,
                                                                                FILED
              Respondent.
                                                                                DEC 12 2023
                                                                            C. Bowen
                                                                                       Greeisvt,     cl
                                                                                 :,:tiPm
                                                                                             -toonoaurt
       The State of Montana has filed a response to this Court's October 31, 2023 Order,
explaining that self-represented Petitioner Williard Dean Youpee is not entitled to
additional credit. We requested a response after indicating that Youpee raised potentially
viable issues that his sentence was invalid. The State has provided a thorough response
and clarified that Youpee's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should be denied.
       By way of background, on March 1, 2010, the Eighth Judicial District Court,
Cascade County, sentenced Youpee for felony robbery to the Department of Corrections
(DOC) for a fifteen-year term with ten years suspended. The court awarded him 163 days
of credit for time served (hereinafter original state sentence).
       In August 2016, after finding that Youpee had violated his conditions, the District
Court imposed a ten-year sentence upon revocation to the DOC. Youpee appealed because
the judgment was silent as to whether it ran concurrently or consecutively with his federal
sentence. State v. Youpee, 2018 MT 102, ¶ 3, 391 Mont. 246, 416 P.3d 1050. This Court
concluded that Youpee had an illegal sentence, in violation of § 46-18-203(7)(a)(iii), MCA,
because, by the failing to specify the sentence was concurrent, the sentence by operation
of law would be consecutive, which effectively imposed a longer term of incarceration.
Youpee, ¶ 6. We also determined that, based upon the State's concession, "Youpee is
entitled to credit for the time he served in federal custody after he discharged onto probation
on his original state sentence." Youpee, ¶ 8. Lastly, we held that Youpee was not entitled
to street time credit or elapsed time because he failed to object contemporaneously to the
court's failure to state its reason for declining such an award. Youpee, ¶ 11. We remanded
the underlying criminal case to the District Court to amend. Youpee,¶¶12, 13. Ultimately,
Youpee received 883 days of jail time credit from both his sentence upon revocation and
his tiine in federal custody.
       In Youpee's pending Petition, we requested a response from the State concerning
additional jail time credit as Youpee claimed. We mistakenly posited that Youpee was due
additional time of 163 days in his original state sentence. Since then, Youpee has filed a
supplemental pleading where he also requests 140 days of credit while he was in the Lewis
and Clark County Detention Center (LCCDC) from November 17, 2022, to April 5, 2023.
He attached a sentence calculation for his sentence upon revocation.
       The State maintains that Youpee incorrectly claiins he is entitled to additional credit.
The State explains that Youpee is not entitled to the 163 days from his original judgment
because Youpee received 163 days of credit against his five-year original state sentence in
2010 and that it cannot be re-added or re-applied to his sentence upon revocation. Thus,
the State concludes that his ten-year sentence upon revocation cannot be reduced by adding
or stacking credit. See Katka v. Guyer, No. OP 20-0365, 2020 Mont. LEXIS 2179, at *4-*5
(Aug. 4, 2020).
      Further, the State point argues Youpee is not entitled to an additional 140 days of
credit against his sentence upon revocation. While the 140 days rnay not appear with the
credit for time served already awarded (883 days), the State provides that Youpee received
credit for his incarceration because, since April 1, 2014, his sentence upon revocation
continued to run. The State explains that Youpee received a grant of parole in 2021 and
that he was a parolee when he violated. The State further explains that Youpee was serving
his sentence upon revocation because it did not stop running while being held in the
LCCDC. After Youpee was released on the charge in Lewis and Clark County, the State
adds that he returned to prison where his parole was revoked and his sentence upon
revocation continued.
                                              2
       We agree with the State and its calculation of time. Youpee has not demonstrated
illegal incarceration because his sentence is valid. Section 46-22-101(1), MCA. He is not
entitled to habeas corpus relief. Therefore,
       IT IS ORDERED that Youpee's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and
DISMISSED.
       IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 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 Willard Dean Youpee personally.
      DATED this 1 Z.- d y of December, 2023.

                                                              Chief Justice

                                                                     /)

                                                     t 4     .. /1        411r"°°.‘
                                                                                :00   :

                                               3