Bartell v. Salmonsen, OP 21-0462

Wesley J. Bartell filed an original petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his conviction and imprisonment as unlawful, citing alleged violations of the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments and asserting lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, a void judgment, judicial bias, and lack of probable cause.
Bartell pleaded guilty in 2018 in Lake County District Court to felony failure to follow the geographic restriction for high‑risk sexual offenders; the court initially deferred imposition and placed him on probation, later revoking probation and imposing a five‑year, unsuspended commitment to the Department of Corrections in 2019.
Bartell did not appeal the revocation and sentence; he later sought copies of all case files, discovery, transcripts, and court records, invoking M. R. App. P. 8(3) and saying he needed them to comply with MCA § 46‑22‑201(1)(b).
The Montana Supreme Court found the requested documents were already available in the court record and determined Bartell’s challenges attack the underlying conviction and sentence rather than the lawfulness of present custody.
The Court concluded habeas was not the proper vehicle to raise issues that should have been raised on direct appeal and denied Bartell’s petition and pending motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether habeas corpus is an appropriate substitute for a direct appeal of conviction/sentence	Bartell contended his imprisonment is unlawful and sought habeas relief	Habeas is not a substitute for appeal; Bartell failed to pursue his direct appeal remedy	Denied — habeas inappropriate; appeal is proper remedy
Whether M. R. App. P. 8(3) entitles petitioner to copies of case files in an original habeas proceeding	Bartell demanded all case files, discovery, transcripts under M. R. App. P. 8(3)	Rule 8(3) applies to direct appeals only; extraordinary relief is not a vehicle to obtain records	Denied — Rule 8(3) inapplicable to original habeas petitions
Whether challenges to jurisdiction, charging documents, and probable cause are cognizable in habeas	Bartell argued lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction, void charges, and lack of probable cause	These issues challenge the conviction and are precluded when petitioner did not appeal	Denied — precluded; should have been raised on direct appeal
Whether asserted due process violations and judicial bias warrant habeas relief	Bartell alleged due process violations and judicial bias affecting his conviction/sentence	No adequate basis shown; record reflects valid plea and revocation process	Denied — no entitlement to habeas relief

State v. Wright, 307 Mont. 349, 42 P.3d 753 (explains that appeal is the proper forum for issues arising from conviction and sentence)
Montgomery v. State, 379 Mont. 353, 350 P.3d 77 (confirms district court subject‑matter jurisdiction and limitations on collateral attack)
Lott v. State, 334 Mont. 270, 150 P.3d 337 (establishes standard that habeas relief is inappropriate where direct appeal remedy exists)