Opinion
OP 23-0587
11-21-2023
MARTIN COLEMAN, Petitioner, v. MONTANA SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT, SILVER BOW COUNTY, THE HONORABLE KURT KRUEGER, Presiding, Respondent.
ORDER
Petitioner Martin Coleman, via counsel, seeks a writ of supervisory control to reverse and vacate the October 2, 2023 Order Denying Motion for New Trial and Request for Evidentiary Hearing (Amended) and the October 3, 2023 Order Denying Motion for New Trial in the Second Judicial District Court, Butte-Silver Bow County, in Cause No. DC-22-128, in which Coleman is the defendant. At Coleman's request, we stayed his sentencing in that court pending the resolution of this petition. Both the State and Hon. Kurt Krueger, presiding Judge, have responded in opposition to Coleman's petition.
On June 22, 2023, a jury found Coleman guilty of attempted deliberate homicide and criminal possession of dangerous drugs. On July 21, 2023, prior to sentencing, Coleman moved for a new trial. The District Court denied the motion. On September 25, 2023, prior to sentencing, Coleman again moved for a new trial. He alleged for the first time that he did not receive a fair trial because of issues related to the jury selection process. The District Court denied this motion as well, ruling that it was untimely. Coleman then petitioned this Court for supervisory control of that ruling.
Supervisory control is an extraordinary remedy that may be invoked when the case involves purely legal questions and urgent or emergency factors make the normal appeal process inadequate. M. R. App. P. 14(3). The case must meet one of three additional criteria: (a) the other court is proceeding under a mistake of law and is causing a gross injustice; (b) constitutional issues of state-wide importance are involved; or (c) the other court has granted or denied a motion for substitution of a judge in a criminal case. M. R. App. P. 14(3)(a)-(c). Consistent with Rule 14(3), it is the Court's practice to refrain from exercising supervisory control when the petitioner has an adequate remedy of appeal. E.g, Buckles v. Seventh Jud. Dist. Ct., No. OP 16-0517, 386 Mont. 393, 386 P.3d 545 (table) (Oct. 18, 2016); Lichte v. Mont. Eighteenth Judicial Dist. Court, No. OP 16-0482, 385 Mont. 540, 382 P.3d 868 (table) (Aug. 24, 2016). "[A] writ of supervisory control is not to be used as a means to circumvent the appeal process. Only in the most extenuating circumstances will such a writ be granted." State ex rel. Ward v. Schmall, 190 Mont. 1, 617P.2d 140(1980).
Here, Coleman asserts the District Court is proceeding under an error of law because the District Court has misapplied the timeliness standard and deprived him of due process. However, Coleman does not explain how, or why, he would be unable to seek review of this ruling on appeal, nor why any relief obtained via appeal would be inadequate. As the State points out in its response, Coleman's trial has already occurred, and the correctness of the District Court's denial of his motion for a new trial can be decided on appeal.
We have determined that Coleman has failed to demonstrate that the normal appeal process is inadequate in this instance. Coleman has offered no compelling argument as to why this Court should assume supervisory control in this matter.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Coleman's Petition for a Writ of Supervisory Control is DENIED and DISMISSED.
The Clerk is directed to provide notice of this Order to counsel for Petitioner, all counsel of record in the Second Judicial District Court, Butte-Silver Bow County, Cause No. DC-22-128, and Honorable Kurt Krueger, presiding.