Blaney v. Gamble, 94-169
| Decision Date | 17 May 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-169,94-169 |
| Citation | 266 Mont. 51,879 P.2d 51 |
| Parties | Eugene Bradley BLANEY, Petitioner, v. James M. GAMBLE, Respondent. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Eugene Bradley Blaney (Blaney), Petitioner herein, has filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. On September 25, 1988, Blaney, pursuant to a plea agreement, pled guilty to one count of sexual assault, a felony. On December 30, 1988, he was sentenced to ten years in Montana State Prison, which sentence was suspended on conditions. Blaney's suspended sentence was revoked on August 1, 1989, for violation of the conditions of his probation. Blaney did not file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea nor did he file a direct appeal. However on November 21, 1991, he filed a petition for post conviction relief claiming (1) that he had new evidence to present; (2) that his plea was coerced; and (3) that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance in his defense by failing to present certain witness testimony. We denied that petition on January 30, 1992. Subsequently Blaney filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on April 7, 1993.
In reviewing his present petition, and despite his contentions to the contrary, Blaney attacks his conviction or sentence at grounds A, B, C, D, F and those portions of ground G dealing with his sentence. Habeas Corpus is not available to attack the validity of a conviction or sentence of a person who has been adjudged guilty in a court of record and has exhausted the remedy of appeal. Moreover, habeas corpus is not available to attack the legality of an order revoking a suspended sentence. Section 46-22-101(2), MCA, (1991). Since Blaney has been adjudged guilty in a court of record and was afforded the right of appeal, § 46-20-104, MCA, habeas corpus will not issue.
Furthermore, even if we review Blaney's petition as one for post conviction relief, Tecca v. McCormick (1990), 246 Mont. 317, 318, 806 P.2d 11, 12, his petition is without merit. Blaney's present claims are substantially the same as those raised in his November 1991 petition for post conviction relief which we denied. Accordingly, Blaney's present claims are barred by res judicata, Hawkins v. State (1990), 242 Mont. 348, 351, 790 P.2d 990, 992, and those claims and any new claims are also procedurally barred by operation of § 46-21-105, MCA, which provides that all grounds for relief claimed by a petitioner under § 46-21-101, MCA, are waived unless raised in the original or amended petition for post conviction relief.
Finally, as to ground E and portions of ground G (Blaney's Exhibit Q attached to his petition) concerning his parole eligibility, the requested writ of habeas corpus will not issue because Blaney is not unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of his liberty. Section 46-22-101(1), MCA. Blaney was denied parole because the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bromgard
...procedural obligations arising from knowledge of that claim's underlying factual basis. See § 46-21-105(1), MCA; Blaney v. Gamble (1994), 266 Mont. 51, 53, 879 P.2d 51, 52-53. We agree with the District Court's conclusion that Bromgard failed to show good cause why he could not reasonably h......
-
State v. Howard, 96-196
...relief even if they are not denominated as such. See, e.g., Rudolph v. Day (1995), 273 Mont. 309, 902 P.2d 1007; Blaney v. Gamble (1994), 266 Mont. 51, 879 P.2d 51; State v. Gorder (1990), 243 Mont. 333, 792 P.2d 370. The District Court, therefore, was not precluded from considering Howard'......