Opinion
OP 23-0175
03-28-2023
ORDER
Petitioner Talon Pallister seeks a writ of supervisory control directing the Fifth Judicial District Court, Beaverhead County, to hold a hearing on Pallister's motion to dismiss pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674 (1978), in its Cause No. DC-22-33.
Supervisory control is an extraordinary remedy that is sometimes justified when urgency or emergency factors exist making the normal appeal process inadequate, when the case involves purely legal questions, and when the other court is proceeding under a mistake of law and is causing a gross injustice, constitutional issues of state-wide importance are involved, or, in a criminal case, the other court has granted or denied a motion to substitute a judge. M. R. App. P. 14(3). Whether supervisory control is appropriate is a case-by-case decision. Stokes v. Mont. Thirteenth Judicial Dist. Court, 2011 MT 182, ¶ 5, 361 Mont. 279. 259 P.3d 754 (citations omitted). 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 Judicial Dist. Court, 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).
Pallister offers no argument as to why the normal appeal process would be inadequate in this case. He thus has not met the threshold requirements for consideration of a petition for writ of supervisory control under M. R. App. P. 14(3).
IT IS THEFORE ORDERED that the petition for writ of supervisory control is DENIED and DISMISSED.
The Clerk is directed to provide immediate notice of this Order to counsel for Petitioner, all counsel of record in the Fifth Judicial District Court, Beaverhead County, Cause No. DC-1-2021-4026, and the Honorable Luke Berger, presiding.