Opinion
DA 24-0154
07-02-2024
STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. RUSSELL WAYNE BULLOCK, Defendant and Appellant.
For Appellant: Russell Wayne Bullock, Self-Represented, Deer Lodge, Montana For Appellee: Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Katie F. Schulz, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Audrey S. Cromwell, Gallatin County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: June 19, 2024
Appeal from: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, In and For the County of Gallatin, Cause No. DC 13-0186B Honorable Rienne H. McElyea, Presiding Judge
For Appellant: Russell Wayne Bullock, Self-Represented, Deer Lodge, Montana
For Appellee: Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Katie F. Schulz, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Audrey S. Cromwell, Gallatin County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana
OPINION
JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA, JUSTICE
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion, 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 Russell Wayne Bullock appeals from the Eighteenth Judicial District Court's Order Re: Request for Statements. We affirm.
¶3 Bullock was convicted of sexual intercourse without consent and burglary in February 2015. We affirmed his conviction in July 2017, but remanded to the District Court for the limited purpose to strike extraneous fees. The District Court entered an amended judgment striking the fees in August 2017. Since that time, Bullock has filed a postconviction relief petition which the District Court dismissed as untimely, and we affirmed in March 2020; a petition for a writ of habeas corpus which we denied in March 2021; and a petition for a writ of habeas corpus which the United States District Court denied, after which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Bullock's request for a certificate of appealability, and the United States Supreme Court denied Bullock's petition for certiorari on January 8, 2024.
¶4 On January 4, 2024, Bullock sent a document to the District Court in which he requested that the Gallatin County Attorney's Office be required to provide him with all witness statements concerning his case. Bullock represented that the statements were needed for his appeal before the United States Supreme Court. The District Court properly treated Bullock's submission as a request for confidential criminal justice information pursuant to § 44-5-303, MCA. The District Court denied Bullock's request because it was not the proper means to obtain the information requested.
¶5 A district court's conclusion of law is reviewed for correctness. Crites v. Lewis & Clark Cty., 2019 MT 161, ¶ 8, 396 Mont. 336, 444 P.3d 1025 (citations omitted).
¶6 Witness statements generated during the course of a criminal investigation are confidential criminal justice information. Section 44-5-103(3), MCA. Relevant to Bullock's request for the witness statements in this case, the proper means by which Bullock may seek to obtain these statements is by filing an action pursuant to § 44-5-303(6), MCA, and making an initial showing that he is "authorized by law to receive the sought-after material." Crites, ¶ 13 (citation omitted). Bullock did not even attempt to make any such showing; he simply requested the statements and stated generally that they were needed for his appeal before the United States Supreme Court. The District Court did not err by denying Bullock's request.
Even though the United States Supreme Court had not yet denied certiorari on Bullock's federal habeas corpus petition at the time that he filed his request with the District Court, he never attempted to explain why the witness statements were necessary to his habeas corpus petition.
¶7 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion of the Court, the case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear application of applicable standards of review. The District Court's Order is affirmed.
We Concur: MIKE McGRATH, LAURIE McKINNON, BETH BAKER, JIM RICE