State v. J. Franks ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                                  ORIGINAL                                                      12/15/2020
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA                                   Case Number: OP 20-0581
    OP 20-0581
    JASON DEAN FRANKS,
    FILED
    DEC 1 5 2020
    Petitioner,                                        CI Bowen
    erk of Greenwood
    Supreme Court
    State of
    Montana
    v.
    ORDER
    ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
    COURT,HEIDI J. ULBRICHT,and
    STATE OF MONTANA,
    Respondents.
    Representing himself, Jason Dean Franks has filed a Petition for a Writ of
    Mandamus over the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, and the Honorable
    Heidi J. Ulbricht. We correct the caption to reflect the imrties' alignment and to include
    the District Court in this original proceeding. M. R. App.P. 14(3). Franks has served the
    Clerk ofDistrict Court.
    Franks contends that the District Court is committing plain error because it has not
    ruled on his pending motions. Citing several cases, he concludes that the cumulative error
    doctrine is appropriate in this case. Franks states that after filing his petition for
    postconviction reliefin the District Court in September 2018 he has attempted "to get relief
    unsuccessfully." He provides the background ofhis 2012 conviction. See State v. Franks,
    
    2014 MT 273
    , 
    376 Mont. 431
    , 
    335 P.3d 725
    ; State v. Franks, 
    2017 MT 225
    , 
    388 Mont. 486
    ,
    402 P.3d 1190
    . He raises claims about the ineffectiveness ofhis counsel, alleging due
    process violations, lack ofa fair trial, and lack ofcompetent counsel in his Petition. Franks
    requests that this Court "enforce his rights to present this evidence through counsel and a
    hearing in district court, or at least have a decision to be able to have access to this Court
    for appeal."
    To state a claim for mandamus, a party must show entitlement to the performance
    of a clear legalftuty by the party against whom the writ is directed and the absence of a
    plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. Section 27-26-102, MCA;Smith v. Missoula
    Co., 
    1999 MT 330
    ,¶ 28,
    297 Mont. 368
    , 
    992 P.2d 834
    . This type of proceeding, such as a
    writ of mandate, must be commenced in accordance with Montana's statutes.
    M.R. App.P. 14(2).
    Franks has not waited two years for a decision. Upon review of his copy of the
    register of actions, it has been five months since his last filing. Franks filed his petition for
    postconviction relief on September 12, 2018, yet the briefing was not cornpleted until June
    17, 2019, after the court's order establishing a briefing schedule. Moreover, Franks
    requested an extension of time to file his reply brief in September 2019, which the court
    granted. Since January 2020, Franks has filed several motions, including appointinent of
    counsel, discoveryand reconsideration. His most recent filing occurred on July 24, 2020.
    A time lapse of more than five months is not unreasonable for a district court to consider a
    petition.
    Franks has not stated a claim for mandamus. M.R. App.P. 14(5). Franks has filed
    an unverified petition, in contradiction to § 27-26-201, MCA, and he has not presented a
    clear legal duty for the District Court to act. Section 27-26-102, MCA;Smith, ¶ 28. No
    exact time frames exist for when a district court shopld rule upon a petition. Pursuant to
    § 46-21-103, MCA,after docketing the petition, the clerk shall "bring the petition promptly
    to the attention of the court." The District Court ieviewed his petition and established a
    briefing schedule. Under Montana law, Franks is not entitled to a hearing or counsel in a
    postconviction proceeding It is incumbent upon the district court's discretion to decide
    such matters. Sections 46-21-201(1)(a), 46-8-104(1), MCA. Discovery procedures in a
    postconviction proceeding are limited and require leave ofthe court. See § 46-21-201(4),
    MCA. The reliefthat Franks pursues is of a discretionary not legal nature. Franks has not
    demonstrated that he is entitled to the performance of a clear legal duty in his request for
    resolution of his pending motions or his petition for postconviction relief.
    2
    Section 27-26-102, MCA; Smith, ¶ 28. A writ of mandate therefore is not appropriate.
    Accordingly,
    IT IS ORDERED that Franks's Petition for a Writ of Mandamus is DENIED and
    DISMISSED.
    The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to provide a copy of this Order to the
    Honorable Heidi J. Ulbricht, Eleventh Judicial District Court; to Peg Allison, Clerk of
    District Court, Flathead County, under Cause No.DV-18-967(c);to counsel ofrecord; and
    to Jason Dean Franks personally.
    DATED this     .8— day ofDecember,2020.
    Chief Justice
    Justices
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: OP 20-0581

Filed Date: 12/15/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/16/2020