 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Houghtaling v. State5/26/2005
Submitted on Briefs: May 3, 2005
Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be cited as precedent. Its case title, Supreme Court cause number and disposition shall be included in this Court's quarterly list of nonciteable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports.
James Houghtaling (Houghtaling) appeals from the denial of his third petition for post-conviction relief by the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County. We affirm.
Houghtaling began filing serial motions after the District Court sentenced him to a four year commitment with the Department of Corrections for fourth offense DUI, a felony. The District Court and this Court reviewed and rejected each of Houghtaling's motions and appeals. Houghtaling filed his latest attempt to obtain collateral relief from his conviction and sentence as an Application for Habeas Corpus (Application). We previously held that Houghtaling's Application was, in reality, a petition for post-conviction relief and remanded it to the District Court for consideration as such. The District Court determined Houghtaling's effort to constitute his third post-conviction relief petition. We agree and conclude that § 46-21-105(1)(b), MCA, bars Houghtaling's latest attempt to collaterally attack his conviction and sentence.
We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) of our 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, which provides for memorandum opinions. Houghtaling's issues are clearly barred from review under settled Montana law.
Houghtaling's third post-conviction petition attempt is time-barred by § 46-21-105(1)(b), MCA.
Affirmed.
BRIAN MORRIS
We Concur:
KARLA M. GRAY
JOHN WARNER
JAMES C. NELSON
JIM RICE
|