State v. Root, 01-315.

Decision Date20 February 2003
Docket NumberNo. 01-315.,01-315.
Citation64 P.3d 1035,314 Mont. 186,2003 MT 28
PartiesSTATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ronald J. ROOT, Defendant and Appellant.
CourtMontana Supreme Court

64 P.3d 1035
2003 MT 28
314 Mont. 186

STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
Ronald J. ROOT, Defendant and Appellant

No. 01-315.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs January 10, 2002.

Decided February 20, 2003.


William F. Hooks, Attorney at Law, Helena, Montana, for appellant.

Honorable Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Carol E. Schmidt, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana, Fred Van Valkenburg, County Attorney, Missoula, Montana, for respondent.

Justice JIM RICE delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1 Ronald J. Root (Root) appeals from the order entered by the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, dismissing his petition for postconviction relief. We affirm.

¶ 2 Although Root raises several issues on appeal, we find the following issue to be dispositive: Did the District Court err in dismissing the petition on the ground that it was time barred?

BACKGROUND

¶ 3 The facts relating to the timeliness of Root's second petition are undisputed. On March 12, 1997, Root was found guilty of the charge of sexual intercourse without consent, a felony, following a jury trial. He appealed, and this Court affirmed his conviction in an opinion issued on August 30, 1999. See State v. Root, 1999 MT 203, 296 Mont. 1, 987 P.2d 1140.

¶ 4 On January 18, 2000, Root, then proceeding pro se, filed a petition for postconviction relief, asserting several ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Finding that the petition conclusively demonstrated that Root was not entitled to relief, the District Court dismissed the petition on March 3, 2000, without ordering a response from the State. Root appealed that dismissal to this Court.

¶ 5 On May 23, 2000, we issued an interlocutory order appointing counsel on appeal for Root, noting that Root was incarcerated in a correctional facility that did not have an adequate legal library. On June 21, 2000, Root, through his appointed counsel, moved to voluntarily

64 P.3d 1036
dismiss his appeal, which was granted by this Court

¶ 6 Root, by his appointed counsel, then filed a second petition for postconviction relief in the District Court on December 4, 2000, again claiming that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel during his trial. After ordering the State to respond, the District Court dismissed Root's second petition, concluding, on the basis of §§ 46-21-102 and -105, MCA, that the petition was time barred, was barred under provisions governing second or subsequent petitions, and was procedurally barred because Root could have raised his claims in earlier proceedings. Because we find the timeliness issue to be dispositive, we do not address the other grounds upon which the District Court dismissed Root's petition.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 7 This Court reviews a district court's denial of a petition for postconviction relief to determine whether the district court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous and whether its conclusions of law are correct. State v. Wright, 2001 MT 282, 307 Mont. 349, 42 P.3d 753. Here, the District Court's findings of fact are not challenged, and our review is confined to the correctness of the District Court's conclusions of law.

DISCUSSION

¶ 8 Section 46-21-102, MCA, states as follows:

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a petition for the relief referred to in XX-XX-XXX may be filed at any time within 1 year of the date that the conviction becomes final. A conviction becomes final for purposes of this chapter when:
(a) the time for appeal to the Montana supreme court expires;
(b) if an appeal is taken to the Montana supreme court, the time for petitioning the United States supreme court for review expires; or
(c) if review is sought in the United States supreme court, on the date that that court issues its final order in the case.
(2) A claim that alleges the existence of newly discovered evidence that, if proved and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole would establish that the petitioner did not engage in the criminal conduct for which the petitioner was convicted, may be raised in a petition filed within 1 year of the date on which the conviction becomes final or the date on which the petitioner discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, the existence of the evidence, whichever is later.

¶ 9 The District...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Pena v. State, 03-595.
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • October 21, 2004
    ...to determine whether the district court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous and whether its conclusions of law are correct. State v. Root, 2003 MT 28, ¶ 7, 314 Mont. 186, ¶ 7, 64 P.3d 1035, ¶ 7 (citing State v. Wright, 2001 MT 282, ¶ 9, 307 Mont. 349, ¶ 9, 42 P.3d 753, ¶ DISCUSSION ¶ 1......
  • Clausell v. State
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • February 15, 2005
    ...relief to determine whether the court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous and whether its conclusions of law are correct. State v. Root, 2003 MT 28, ¶ 7, 314 Mont. 186, ¶ 7, 64 P.3d 1035, ¶ 7 (citation omitted). Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel constitute mixed questions of ......
  • State v. Osborne, 05-143.
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • December 14, 2005
    ...to determine whether the district court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous and whether its conclusions of law are correct. State v. Root, 2003 MT 28, ¶ 7, 314 Mont. 186, ¶ 7, 64 P.3d 1035, ¶ 7 (citation ¶ 9 Did the District Court err in dismissing Osborne's petition for postconviction......
  • Beach v. State
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • November 24, 2009
    ...demonstrate good cause why the petition has asserted claims that were not raised in the original petition. Section 46-21-105, MCA; State v. Root, 2003 MT 28, ¶ 16, 314 Mont. 186, 64 P.3d 1035. Beach's 1995 petition failed to allege newly discovered evidence. This Court deemed that petition ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT