Thaylin S. Pierce v. State , 1012 MT 287N ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                            December 12 2012
    DA 12-0135
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
    2012 MT 287N
    THAYLIN SHAWN PIERCE,
    Petitioner and Appellant,
    v.
    STATE OF MONTANA,
    Respondent and Appellee.
    APPEAL FROM:          District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District,
    In and For the County of Yellowstone, Cause No. DV 11-1377
    Honorable Gregory R. Todd, Presiding Judge
    COUNSEL OF RECORD:
    For Appellant:
    Thaylin Shawn Pierce, self-represented; Billings, Montana
    For Appellee:
    Steve Bullock, Montana Attorney General; Mardell Ployhar, Assistant
    Attorney General; Helena, Montana
    Scott Twito, Yellowstone County Attorney; David Carter, Deputy County
    Attorney; Billings, Montana
    Submitted on Briefs: October 24, 2012
    Decided: December 12, 2012
    Filed:
    __________________________________________
    Clerk
    Justice Beth Baker 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     Thaylin Shawn Pierce appeals an order of the Thirteenth Judicial District Court,
    Yellowstone County, denying his petition for postconviction relief. Pierce was charged
    with Driving a Motor Vehicle Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs (DUI). On
    April 1, 2010, Pierce pled no contest to the DUI charge. In his petition for postconviction
    relief, filed September 23, 2011, Pierce made the following two claims: (1) that he
    received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to present certified
    copies of his Colorado and Wyoming driving records, and (2) that the prosecutor’s failure
    to disclose material evidence that Pierce had only two prior DUI convictions in any state,
    rather than the thirteen DUIs listed in the presentence investigation report, violated Brady
    v. Maryland, 
    373 U.S. 83
    , 
    83 S. Ct. 1194
     (1963). The District Court denied the petition
    on January 9, 2012, on the ground that his allegations could have been raised on direct
    appeal and therefore were procedurally barred. Herman v. State, 
    2006 MT 7
    , ¶ 55, 
    330 Mont. 267
    , 
    127 P.3d 422
     (“In postconviction proceedings, § 46-21-105(2), MCA,
    2
    precludes consideration of a claim that reasonably could have been raised on direct
    appeal.”).
    ¶3     When reviewing an order denying a petition for postconviction relief, we
    determine whether the District Court’s factual findings are clearly erroneous and whether
    its legal conclusions are correct. Whitlow v. State, 
    2008 MT 140
    , ¶ 9, 
    343 Mont. 90
    , 
    183 P.3d 861
    .
    ¶4     Pierce’s appellate brief, filed on June 14, 2012, states seven issues that differ from
    the two that he presented in the petition for postconviction relief. On appeal, Pierce’s
    claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are based on: counsel allowing the court to
    coerce him to surrender his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, counsel’s failure to
    request sufficient time for him to decide whether he was under the influence of alcohol
    before he made a decision about his plea, and counsel’s failure to request a competency
    test or hearing before Pierce signed any documents. He now claims that the State failed
    to disclose material evidence regarding the factual basis for the change of plea hearing
    and results of the court-ordered portable breath test. We generally do not review issues
    raised for the first time on appeal, State v. Longfellow, 
    2008 MT 343
    , ¶ 19, 
    346 Mont. 286
    , 
    194 P.3d 694
    , and will not review the new issues raised in Pierce’s brief.
    ¶5     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.
    Pierce failed to offer argument or authority on the issues determined by the District Court
    3
    and may not present new claims on appeal that he did not raise in his petition for
    postconviction relief.
    ¶6     Affirmed.
    /S/ BETH BAKER
    We concur:
    /S/ JIM RICE
    /S/ PATRICIA COTTER
    /S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
    /S/ BRIAN MORRIS
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-0135

Citation Numbers: 1012 MT 287N

Filed Date: 12/12/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014