Hannan v. State , 2005 MT 248N ( 2005 )

No. 04-878
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2005 MT 248N
JOHN A.P. HANNAN,
Petitioner and Appellant
v.
STATE OF MONTANA,
Respondent and Respondent.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Nineteenth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Lincoln, Cause No. DC 99-43
The Honorable Michael C. Prezeau, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
John A.P. Hannan, pro se, Crossroads Correctional Center, Shelby, Montana
For Respondent:
Honorable Mike McGrath, Montana Attorney General, Jennifer Anders,
Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana; Bernard G. Cassidy, Lincoln
County Attorney, Libby, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: August 17, 2005
Decided: October 13, 2005
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Patricia O. Cotter delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 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 noncitable opinions published in the Pacific Reporter and
Montana Reports.
¶2 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section 1, Paragraph 3(d) of our
1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, which provides for memorandum
opinions.
¶3 The Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Lincoln County, denied John Hannan’s
(Hannan) “Petition for Relief” on October 27, 2004, finding that as a matter of law Hannan
failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted. We affirm.
¶4 On appeal from denial of postconviction relief, we review a district court’s findings
to determine whether they are clearly erroneous, and the court’s conclusions to determine
whether the court correctly applied the law. Lout v. State, 2005 MT 93, ¶ 11, 326 Mont.
485, ¶ 11, 111 P.3d 199, ¶ 11 (citations omitted).
¶5 On December 30, 1999, Hannan pled guilty and was convicted of Mitigated
Deliberate Homicide, a felony, in violation of § 45-5-103, MCA. Hannan was then
sentenced on January 6, 2000, to a 40-year prison term at the Montana State Prison; he
remains imprisoned now. As part of his Sentencing Order it was recommended that if
Hannan should be paroled, he would be required to make restitution payments totaling
2
$20,800.80, including $1,210.00 to the Crime Victim Compensation Program.
¶6 On July 12, 2002, Hannan filed a Petition for Postconviction Relief, which was
denied by the District Court on August 28, 2002. Hannan appealed to this Court, but later
dismissed his appeal. We issued an Order of Dismissal on June 10, 2003.
¶7 On July 6, 2004, the Department of Corrections began garnishing one-third of
Hannan’s prison wages to reimburse the Crime Victim Compensation Program for funds
paid to the victim of Hannan’s crime. Then, on October 25, 2004, more than three years
after his conviction, Hannan filed a pro se document in the District Court entitled “Petition
for Relief” (Petition), referencing the cause number (DC-99-43) of the charge which resulted
in his conviction of Mitigated Deliberate Homicide.
¶8 In his Petition, Hannan claimed that (1) Crossroads Correction Center (Center) in
Shelby, Montana, where he was then incarcerated, had no authority to garnish his inmate
account to pay his obligation to the Crime Victim’s Compensation Program prior to his
release on parole, and (2) the Center’s action violated his Sentencing Order. Hannan asked
the District Court to void his Plea Agreement, order the State to reimburse him for money
withdrawn from his prison account, and reimburse him for costs incurred pursuing the relief
he requested.
3
¶9 Though it was not entirely clear from the pleadings, the District Court concluded that
because Hannan referenced case number DC-99-43, he was seeking postconviction relief.
We concur.
¶10 We find the District Court’s dismissal was proper both because the time for seeking
postconviction relief has run, and because Montana’s postconviction relief statute provides
no remedy for complaints about matters between prisoners and correctional facilities.
Pursuant to § 46-21-102, MCA, Hannan had one year from the time his conviction was final
to file a petition for postconviction relief. State v. Daniels, 2005 MT 110, ¶ 11, 327 Mont.
78, ¶ 11, 111 P.3d 675, ¶ 11. Hannan did not file a direct appeal, so his conviction became
final when his time for filing an appeal expired in December 2000. He then had one year
to file a petition for postconviction relief; the timely petition Hannan did file was
subsequently dismissed at his request. Hannan filed the Petition at issue here on October 25,
2005, well after the allowable time had expired. Relief is therefore barred as untimely.
¶11 Moreover, Hannan’s complaint about wage garnishment does not fall within the
parameters of Montana’s postconviction relief statute. Section 46-21-101(1), MCA,
provides remedies for non-appealable errors related to criminal convictions or sentences, but
not for challenges to actions taken by the State’s correctional facilities. This Court cannot
grant relief which the statute does not provide.
4
¶12 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the District Court’s denial of Hannan’s Petition
for Relief.
/S/ PATRICIA O. COTTER
We Concur:
/S/ KARLA M. GRAY
/S/ JIM RICE
/S/ JOHN WARNER
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
5