Opinion
OP 23-0282
06-13-2023
ALEX CHRISTOPHER SMITH, Petitioner, v. PETER BLUDWORTH, Warden, Crossroads Correctional Center, Respondent.
ORDER
By way of habeas corpus, Alex Christopher Smith asks this Court to "[r]everse charges or assign counsel so [he] can properly challenge charges." Smith seeks counsel's representation in his pending postconviction matter in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County. He asserts that the District Court has denied his due process rights because if failed "to: record proceedings, acknowledge [his] petition and assign counsel."
This Court is familiar with Smith's underlying proceeding in District Court.
[T]he State charged Smith with five felonies, including attempted deliberate homicide, on August 14, 2021, in the Cascade County District Court. On June 24, 2022, the District Court accepted Smith's nolo contendere pleas to two counts of felony assault with a weapon (reasonable apprehension) and sentenced Smith to the Montana State Prison for two, consecutive twenty year terms. Smith did not appeal his conviction and sentence to this Court.Smith v. Salmonsen, No. OP 22-0428, Order, at 1 (Mont. Sept. 20, 2022). This Court denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We also denied his second writ where he claimed his illegal incarceration was due to his counsel's failures. See Smith v. Salmonsen, No. OP 22-0694, Order (Mont. Dec. 27, 2022).
Smith contends that he is "unable to challenge [his] illegal incarceration" due to his placement in prison as well as the District Court's unwillingness to act after he presented "sufficient evidence" and requested a change in venue: He adds that due to his "untreated medical problems" he is having difficulty representing himself.
A writ of habeas corpus is not the vehicle to bypass a pending proceeding for postconviction relief. Montana's statutes dictate a proceeding for a petition for postconviction relief. Sections 46-21-101, through 46-21 -203. MCA. A district court has the statutory discretion whether to assign counsel, have a hearing, or to decide the petition on its merits without a response from the State. See §§ 46-21-20 l(1)(a), and 46-21-201(5), MCA. Smith's pending petition in the sentencing court is the venue to raise his claims about his former's counsel representation.
See also Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., No. OP 23-0241, Order denying Petition for Rehearing, filed contemporaneously with this Order (Mont. Jun. 13, 2023).
Smith has not demonstrated illegal incarceration. Section 46-22-101(1), MCA. Accordingly.
IT IS ORDERED that Smith's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED.
The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to Alex Christopher Smith personally.