Case Information
*1 09/21/2021
I N T H E S U P R E M E C OU R T O F T H E S T A TE O F M ON T ANA Case Number: OP 21-0462 O P 21 - 0462 F I L E D W E S LE Y J . B A R TELL , SEP 21 2021 B o w en G r een w ood P e titi on e r , C l e r k o f S up r e m e C ou r t S t a t e o f M on t ana v . O R D E R J I M S A L M ON S E N , W a r d e n , M on t a n a S t a t e P r i s o n , D ee r L odg e ,
R e s pond e n t . W e s l e y J . B a r t e ll h a s f il e d a P e titi on f o r W r it o f H a b ea s C o r pu s , " [ c ] h a ll e ng i ng [ h i s ] U n l a w f u l a nd I 11 e g a 1 [ J udg m e n t ] a nd I m p r i s on m e n t . . . . " B a r t e ll e xp l a i n s t h a t i s s ee k i ng r e d r e ss und e r s e v e r a l U . S . C on s tit u ti on A m e nd m
e n t s — F i r s t , F i f t h , a nd F ou r t ee n t h — b eca u s e o f t h e l ac k o f s ub j ec t m a tt e r j u r i s d i c ti on , vo i d j u dg m e n t , j ud i c i a l b i a s , vo i d i n f o rr n a ti on , a nd l ac k o f ac t u a l p r ob a b l e c a u s e . H e s t a t e s t h a t h i s du e p r o ce ss r i gh t s h a v e b ee n v i o l a t e d . H e a l s o r nov e s t h i s C ou r t " T O C O M P EL A LL C A S E F I LE S , D I S C OV E R Y , T R AN S CR I P T S AND C OU R T R E C O R D S P U R S UAN T T O M . R . A PP . P . 8 ( 3 ) AND F O R T H E P U R P O S E O F C O M P L Y I NG W I T H T H E R E Q U I R E M E N T S S ET F O R T H I N M . C . A . § 46 - 22 - 201 ( 1 ) , ( b ) . " ( E r nph a s i s i n o r i g i n a l . ) B a r t e ll p r ov i d e s t h a t on l y w h e n h e r ece i v e s a ll t h e d o c u m e n t a ti o n w ill h e b e a b l e t o c o m p l y w i t h § 4 6 - 2 2 - 2 0 1 ( 1 ) ( b ) , M C A , w h i c h s t a t e s " w hy t h e i m p r i s on m e n t o r r e s t r a i n t i s un l a w f u l [ . ] "
B a r t e ll ' s i m p r i s on m e n t i s no t un l a w f u l . T h i s C ou r t s ec u r e d c op i e s o f r e l e v a n t do c u m e n t s . I n 2018 , B a r t e ll e n t e r e d a gu ilt y p l ea t o f e l ony f a i l u r e t o f o ll o w t h e g e og r a ph i c r e s t r i c ti on a pp li ca b l e t o h i gh -r i s k s e xu a l o ff e nd e r s i n t h e L a k e C oun t y D i s t r i c t C ou r t . O n M a r c h 21 , 2018 , t h e D i s t r i c t C ou r t d e f e rr e d i m po s iti on o f a t h r ee - y ea r s e n t e n ce . B a r t e ll v i o l a t e d c ond it i on s o f p r ob a ti on a bou t a m on t h l a t e r . I n 2019 , t h e D i s t r i c t C ou r t r e vok e d t h e o r i g i n a l s e n t e n ce , i m po s i ng a f i v e - y e a r , un s u s p e nd e d t e r m o f c o mm it m e n t t o t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f C o rr ec ti o n s , t o r u n c on c u rr e n tl y w it h a no t h e r s e n t e n ce . B a r t e ll d i d no t a pp ea l .
*2 Bartell's challenges to his imprisonment are not properly before this Court because the challenges go to his conviction. By not appealing, Bartell has thus exhausted his remedy of appeal. Section 46-22-101(2), MCA. The remedy of habeas corpus is not a substitute for a direct appeal of a conviction and sentence. An appeal is the proper forum in which to litigate issues arising from a conviction and sentence. State v. Wright, 2001 MT 282, ¶¶ 36-37, 307 Mont. 349, 42 P.3d 753. Bartell is precluded from challenging jurisdiction, the charging docurnents, or probable cause here. See Montgomery v. State, 2015 MT 151, ¶ 11, 379 Mont. 353, 350 P.3d 77 ("The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the felonies as stated in Mont. Const. art. VII, § 4(1) and § 3-5-302(1)(a), MCA, and the court granted leave for the prosecution to commence. Section 46-11-101(3),
MCA.").
Bartell's motion is unwarranted. In an original proceeding, such as his petition for habeas corpus relief, the court record rule of M. R. App. P. 8(3) does not apply. M. R. App. P. 8(3) applies to direct appeals, not petitions for extraordinary relief A petition must set forth the facts, legal questions, and authorities, pursuant to M. R. App. P. 14(5). A petition for extraordinary relief should not be used to obtain copies of court records, charging documents, or other pleadings.
This Court concludes that Bartell is not entitled to habeas corpus relief Section 46-22-101(1), MCA; Lott v. State, 2006 MT 279, ¶ 19, 334 Mont. 270, 150 P.3d 337. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that Bartell's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and
DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bartell's pending rnotion is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to
Wesley J. Bartell personally. , 5-4- DATED this -e-- I. day of Septernber, 2021. Liviolige -43 *3 . ?-i noi ,t.11.,..
Justices