State v. Placzkiewicz, No. 00-402.
| Docket Nº | No. 00-402. |
| Citation | 36 P.3d 934, 2001 MT 254, 307 Mont. 189 |
| Case Date | December 11, 2001 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Montana |
36 P.3d 934
2001 MT 254
307 Mont. 189
v.
Alan M. PLACZKIEWICZ, Defendant and Appellant
No. 00-402.
Supreme Court of Montana.
Submitted on Briefs April 5, 2001.
Decided December 11, 2001.
William Boggs, Missoula, MT, For Appellant.
Mike McGrath, Montana Attorney General, Jennifer Anders, Assistant Montana Attorney General, Helena, MT; Fred R. Van Valkenburg, Missoula County Attorney, Missoula, MT, For Respondent.
¶ 1 Alan M. Placzkiewicz (Alan), by counsel, appeals from the District Court's February 2, 2000 order denying his request to file a petition for postconviction relief. The sole issue which we consider is whether the District Court properly concluded that postconviction relief was time-barred. We hold that, as a matter of law, the trial court's decision was correct. Accordingly, we affirm.
Background
¶ 2 On July 23, 1992, Alan was sentenced on his plea of guilty to felony arson to serve 20 years in the Montana State Prison, with 15 years suspended on various conditions. Alan was later released from prison to begin serving the suspended portion of his sentence. On February 8, 1995, as a result of a petition filed by the Missoula County Attorney, the District Court revoked Alan's suspended sentence and ordered him to serve 15 years at the Montana State Prison with all time suspended on conditions.
¶ 3 On February 13, 1995, the Missoula County Attorney again petitioned to revoke Alan's suspended sentence. The District Court granted this petition on February 27, 1995. In this second revocation proceeding, the court imposed a term of 15 years in the Montana State Prison, with 10 years suspended on various conditions. Alan was later released from prison to begin serving the suspended portion of this sentence.
¶ 4 In February 1998, the Missoula County Attorney's office once again filed a petition to revoke Alan's suspended sentence for violating the rules of his probation. For a third time the District court revoked Alan's suspended sentence and, this time, required him to serve 10 years in the Montana State Prison, with all but three days suspended on various terms and conditions. Two months later, on April 9, 1998, and for a fourth time, the Missoula County Attorney petitioned to revoke Alan's suspended sentence. This petition culminated with the District Court issuing a judgment sentencing Alan to a term of 10 years in the Montana State Prison with no time suspended. This sentence was affirmed by the Sentence Review Division on September 1, 1998.
¶ 5 The record reflects that Alan then filed various pro se documents with the District Court attempting to obtain other documents and discovery. As a result, the District Court requested the Missoula County Public Defender's Office to represent Alan. However, because of a conflict the Public Defender referred Alan's case to William Boggs, Alan's present counsel.
¶ 6 On October 18, 1999, Boggs filed a "Request for Hearing on Post-Judgment Representation" indicating that Alan wanted to "challenge his original 1992 conviction by way of a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of then-appointed counsel...." In this request for hearing, Boggs expressed several concerns, one of which was that Alan's postconviction petition would be time-barred under § 46-21-102, MCA (1991).
¶ 7 Following a hearing on his request, the District Court authorized Boggs to file a brief on the statute of limitations issue without filing a postconviction petition. Subsequently, Boggs filed his memorandum of law on December 23, 1999, arguing that the statute of limitations should be tolled. The State responded, and on February 2, 2000, the District Court entered its order denying Alan's request to file a petition for postconviction relief on the basis that such a petition would be time-barred. Alan timely appealed.
¶ 8 We conclude that the District Court's decision was correct and, therefore, must be affirmed.
Discussion
¶ 9 Was Alan time-barred from seeking postconviction relief?
¶ 10 This Court reviews a district court's denial of postconviction relief to determine whether the court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Powder River County v. State, No. 00-226
...intent will control a general intent to the extent that there is any opposition between them. Section 1-2-102, MCA. State v. Placzkiewicz, 2001 MT 254, ¶ 18, 307 Mont. 189, ¶ 18, 36 P.3d 934, ¶ 18; In re Marriage of Kotecki, 2000 MT 254, ¶ 14, 301 Mont. 460, ¶ 14, 10 P.3d 828, ¶ 14. "Partic......
-
Pena v. State, No. 03-595.
...complaints, the postconviction statutes are demanding in their pleading requirements." Ellenburg, ¶ 12. ¶ 33 In State v. Placzkiewicz, 2001 MT 254, 307 Mont. 189, 36 P.3d 934, we specifically held that the time limitation in § 46-21-102, MCA, controls over other tolling provisions, even tho......
-
People v. Cole
...2002 WL 598434, 2002 Va Cir LEXIS 64 [Va Cir Ct, Apr. 8, 2002]; State v Ratliff, 71 SW3d 291, 296-298 [Tenn 2001]; State v Placzkiewicz, 307 Mont 189, 192, 36 P3d 934, 936 [2001]; State v Norsworthy, 71 SW3d 610 [Mo 2002]; Pellegrini v State, 117 Nev 860, 34 P3d 519, 537 [2001]; Heffernan v......
-
State v. Graham, No. 01-131.
...does not apply unless the petitioner provides newly discovered evidence that demonstrates his actual innocence. State v. Placzkiewicz, 2001 MT 254, ¶ 12, 307 Mont. 189, ¶ 12, 36 P.3d 934, ¶ 12; State v. Redcrow, 1999 MT 95, 57 P.3d 57 ¶¶ 33-34, 37, 294 Mont. 252, ¶¶ 33-34, 37, 980 P.2d 622,......
-
Powder River County v. State, No. 00-226
...intent will control a general intent to the extent that there is any opposition between them. Section 1-2-102, MCA. State v. Placzkiewicz, 2001 MT 254, ¶ 18, 307 Mont. 189, ¶ 18, 36 P.3d 934, ¶ 18; In re Marriage of Kotecki, 2000 MT 254, ¶ 14, 301 Mont. 460, ¶ 14, 10 P.3d 828, ¶ 14. "Partic......
-
Pena v. State, No. 03-595.
...complaints, the postconviction statutes are demanding in their pleading requirements." Ellenburg, ¶ 12. ¶ 33 In State v. Placzkiewicz, 2001 MT 254, 307 Mont. 189, 36 P.3d 934, we specifically held that the time limitation in § 46-21-102, MCA, controls over other tolling provisions, even tho......
-
People v. Cole
...2002 WL 598434, 2002 Va Cir LEXIS 64 [Va Cir Ct, Apr. 8, 2002]; State v Ratliff, 71 SW3d 291, 296-298 [Tenn 2001]; State v Placzkiewicz, 307 Mont 189, 192, 36 P3d 934, 936 [2001]; State v Norsworthy, 71 SW3d 610 [Mo 2002]; Pellegrini v State, 117 Nev 860, 34 P3d 519, 537 [2001]; Heffernan v......
-
State v. Graham, No. 01-131.
...does not apply unless the petitioner provides newly discovered evidence that demonstrates his actual innocence. State v. Placzkiewicz, 2001 MT 254, ¶ 12, 307 Mont. 189, ¶ 12, 36 P.3d 934, ¶ 12; State v. Redcrow, 1999 MT 95, 57 P.3d 57 ¶¶ 33-34, 37, 294 Mont. 252, ¶¶ 33-34, 37, 980 P.2d 622,......