MacGregor v. Sentence Review
OP 21-0560
| Mont. | Nov 23, 2021Background:
- Jeremy MacGregor was convicted in 2011 of two counts of attempted deliberate homicide and sentenced by the Lewis and Clark County District Court to concurrent 100-year terms with parole eligibility restricted for 50 years.
- This Court affirmed his convictions on direct appeal in 2013 and later affirmed denial of his postconviction relief petition in 2018.
- The Sentence Review Division (SRD) reviewed and affirmed MacGregor’s sentence in February 2020, issuing a written decision stating reasons as required by statute.
- MacGregor filed a "Third Request for Transcript and Cause" with the Montana Supreme Court, framed as seeking a writ for extraordinary relief; he alleged due process violations because his former wife/victim testified at the SRD hearing despite not participating in the PSI or original sentencing.
- MacGregor claimed the SRD improperly denied transcript requests and a new hearing, arguing the SRD could not distinguish record-based testimony from non-record testimony.
- The Montana Supreme Court treated the filing as an extraordinary-relief petition, found no viable basis for relief, concluded Montana statutory provisions govern sentence review and permit participation by interested persons, and denied and dismissed the petition.
Issues:
| Issue | MacGregor's Argument | Sentence Review Division / State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the filing constitutes "direct review" under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) | MacGregor contends SRD decision is a form of direct review triggering federal statute | Montana statutes ( §§46-18-901–905 MCA) govern SRD review; federal code not the proper basis | Court held Montana statutes apply; filing treated as extraordinary relief petition and federal statute not controlling |
| Whether admission of testimony from victim/former wife who did not participate in PSI or sentencing violated due process | Testimony from a non-PSI/non-sentencing participant denied MacGregor due process | SRD allowed testimony because statute permits "any other person" to attend and participate; victim is an interested party | No due process violation; SRD permissibly allowed victim to testify under §46-18-904(2), MCA |
| Whether SRD’s alleged refusal to provide transcripts or a new hearing was improper and whether MacGregor showed entitlement to extraordinary relief | SRD’s denial of transcripts/new hearing was legally impossible to adjudicate without the record; requests for transcripts were improperly denied | MacGregor failed to articulate a viable basis for extraordinary relief; SRD issued required written reasons and remedies were exhausted | Court denied the request for transcripts/new hearing and dismissed the petition for extraordinary relief; no relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Driver v. Sentence Review Division, 355 Mont. 273, 227 P.3d 1018 (Mont. 2010) (challenges to SRD decisions proceed by petition for extraordinary relief)
- Ranta v. State, 288 Mont. 391, 958 P.2d 670 (Mont. 1998) (same; scope of review for SRD matters)
- State v. MacGregor, 372 Mont. 142, 311 P.3d 428 (Mont. 2013) (affirming MacGregor’s convictions on direct appeal)
- MacGregor v. State, 392 Mont. 551, 414 P.3d 1291 (Mont. 2018) (affirming denial of MacGregor’s postconviction relief)