Gopher v. 20th Judicial District Co , 2012 MT 141N ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                              July 3 2012
    DA 12-0018
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
    2012 MT 141N
    WILLIAM J. GOPHER,
    Petitioner and Appellant,
    v.
    STATE OF MONTANA, LAKE COUNTY,
    TWENTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
    AND THE HON. C.B. MCNEIL
    Respondent and Appellee.
    APPEAL FROM:           District Court of the Twentieth Judicial District,
    In and For the County of Lake, Cause No. DC 05-116
    Honorable C.B. McNeil, Presiding Judge
    COUNSEL OF RECORD:
    For Appellant:
    William J. Gopher, self-represented, Great Falls, Montana
    For Appellee:
    Steve Bullock, Montana Attorney General; Katie F. Schulz, Assistant
    Attorney General, Helena, Montana
    Mitch Young, Lake County Attorney; Mark A. Russell, Deputy County
    Attorney, Polson, Montana
    Submitted on Briefs: June 12, 2012
    Decided: July 3, 2012
    Filed:
    __________________________________________
    Clerk
    Justice Brian Morris delivered the Opinion of the Court.
    ¶1     Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating
    Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not serve
    as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this Court’s
    quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports.
    ¶2     Appellant William J. Gopher (Gopher) appeals the District Court’s order denying his
    petition for declaratory judgment. We affirm.
    ¶3     The State of Montana charged Gopher with four felony counts in 2005 that arose from
    Gopher’s bank robbery in Ronan. The charges included robbery, two counts of assault with
    a weapon, and intimidation.
    ¶4     Gopher entered guilty pleas to the charges, pursuant to a plea agreement, on October
    26, 2005. The District Court sentenced Gopher on November 30, 2005, in accordance with
    the terms of the plea agreement. The court entered its written judgment and sentence on
    December 20, 2005.
    ¶5     Gopher filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on October 14, 2009. He next filed a
    motion to withdraw his guilty plea on May 18, 2011. He later sought to amend his motion to
    a writ of error coram nobis. Gopher asserted that he should not have been convicted of four
    separate counts because the assault and intimidation charges involved “acts” contained in the
    robbery count based on the language of § 45-5-401(3), MCA.
    ¶6     The District Court denied Gopher’s writ of error coram nobis on the basis that it was
    not timely pursuant to § 46-16-105(2), MCA. Gopher filed the motion more than one year
    2
    past the date that Gopher’s judgment had become final. Gopher filed the petition at issue in
    this appeal on August 24, 2011, in which he alleged the same claims as in his motion to
    withdraw his guilty plea. The State responded and the District Court again denied Gopher’s
    petition as untimely on November 2, 2011.
    ¶7     Gopher filed a notice of appeal on January 6, 2012. Gopher argues that his request for
    declaratory judgment accords with the exception made in McGillivray v. State, 
    1999 MT 3
    ,
    
    293 Mont. 19
    , 
    972 P.2d 804
    , regarding statutory time limits. The State disagrees.
    ¶8     We review for correctness a district court’s interpretation of law pertaining to a
    declaratory judgment ruling. In re Estate of Marchwick, 
    2010 MT 129
    , ¶ 8, 
    356 Mont. 385
    ,
    
    234 P.3d 879
    . This Court reviews a district court’s conclusions of law to determine whether
    they are correct. Connor v. City of Dillon, 
    2012 MT 21
    , ¶ 6, 
    364 Mont. 8
    , 
    270 P.3d 75
    . We
    have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) of our Internal
    Operating Rules, which provides for noncitable memorandum opinions. It is manifest on the
    face of the briefs and the record before us that the District Court correctly applied the
    procedural time bar to Gopher’s claim.
    ¶9     Affirmed.
    /S/ BRIAN MORRIS
    We Concur:
    /S/ JAMES C. NELSON
    /S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
    3
    /S/ PATRICIA COTTER
    /S/ JIM RICE
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-0018

Citation Numbers: 2012 MT 141N

Filed Date: 7/3/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014