Opinion
OP 24-0648
11-19-2024
MARK EUGENE BENTON, Petitioner, v. D.J. GODFREY, Warden, Crossroads Correctional Center, Respondent.
ORDER
Representing himself, Mark Eugene Benton has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, alleging "that Judge Harris[] could not sit on the bench and adjudicate this case further after the [Petitioner's] arraignment." As grounds for his arguments, Benton cites to older cases from the United States Supreme Court and federal law.
By way of background, the Yellowstone County District Court sentenced Benton in November 2005 to a twenty-year prison term with ten years suspended for felony incest. The District Court revoked his suspended sentence in 2015 and imposed a ten-year term to the Department of Corrections (DOC) with five years suspended (2015 sentence upon revocation).
On April 1, 2021, the State of Montana charged Benton with failure to register as a sexual offender via an Information in the District Court. The State and Benton entered into a plea agreement where he acknowledged certain rights. On December 23, 2022, the District Court imposed a suspended five-year sentence to the DOC and awarded credit for time served. The court ran the sentence consecutively to his 2015 sentence upon revocation. This sentence is the basis of Benton's complaint with his instant writ.
On the same day, the court revoked the 2015 sentence upon revocation and imposed a five-year prison term.
Benton posits that a writ of habeas corpus should issue "for the unconstitutional and unlawful misconduct, and abuse of discretion by the [presiding] Judge Donald Harris of the 13th Judicial District Court . . . ." Benton contends that the Judge violated his constitutional rights by unlawfully presiding in all of the critical stages of the criminal case. Benton further contends that the Judge "unlawfully presided in the accusatory and judicial roles." He states that because the Judge was a "'one-man grand jury'" recusal was appropriate in his case. He provides that he sought relief in the District Court under M. R. Civ, P. 60(b) and that his writ should issue "to correct the present wrongful conviction and illegal sentence." Benton requests that this Court reverse his charges and expunge the record.
Benton is not entitled to such relief or his requests. Almost a decade ago, we explained that "Montana's specific constitutional and statutory provisions define a district court's jurisdiction and provide for commencing a state prosecution. Mont, Const, art. II, § 20(1) and art. VII, § 4(1); §§ 3-5-301(1), -302(1)(a), and 46-11-101, MCA. 'The district court has original jurisdiction in all criminal cases amounting to felony ....' Mont. Const, art. VII, § 4(1)." State v. Montgomery, 2015 MT 151, ¶ 9, 379 Mont. 353, 350 P.3d 77. In Montgomery, we pointed to more recent United States Supreme Court case law, distinguishing the grand jury requirement for indictment in federal cases as opposed to state cases. Montgomery, ¶ 9 (citing Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 477 n.3, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 2355 n.3 (2000) (noting that the Fourteenth Amendment "has not . . . been construed to include the Fifth Amendment right to 'presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury. . . .'")).
The Montana Legislature has provided a statutory scheme for felony prosecution. The State of Montana commenced Benton's felony prosecution according to Montana's Constitution and under its applicable statutory scheme by filing an application which includes an information for leave of court along with an affidavit supported by evidence. Section 46-11-201(2), MCA (2003). Montgomery, ¶¶ 9-11; Mont. Const, art. II, § 20(1); §§ 46-11-101(3), and 46-11-102(1), MCA. Under Montana law, the District Court had subject matter jurisdiction. Montgomery, ¶ 11. The Judge did not participate in the accusatory process when it granted leave for the prosecution to commence. Montgomery, ¶ 11; § 46-11-101(3), MCA.
Benton has since filed a "Judicial Notice of Newly Available Evidence" challenging his December 31, 2020 arrest, alleging due process violations, and providing various attachments. In a November 7, 2024 letter to the District Court, he requests production of transcripts. We conclude that Benton has no newly available evidence here.
Benton's arguments lack merit. He has not demonstrated illegal incarceration. Section 46-22-101(1), MCA. A writ of habeas corpus is not the remedy for constitutional violations, such as due process. Gates v. Missoula Cnty. Comm'rs, 235 Mont. 261, 262, 766 P.2d 884, 884-85 (1988). He cannot challenge a sentence upon revocation through this remedy. Section 46-22-101(2), MCA. Benton has a lawful sentence; he is not entitled to the dismissal of charges or expungement of his record. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Benton's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED;
2. Benton's Judicial Notice of Newly Available Evidence is DISMISSED, as moot; and
3. this case is CLOSED as of this Order's date.
The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record; to Christopher Belback, District Court Administrator; and to Mark Eugene Benton personally.