August 26 2014
DA 13-0823
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2014 MT 233N
SHAWN HOWARD WELLER,
Petitioner and Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MONTANA,
Respondent and Appellee.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District,
In and For the County of Lewis and Clark, Cause No. CDV-2013-358
Honorable Kathy Seeley, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Shawn Howard Weller, Self-Represented, Shelby, Montana
For Appellee:
Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Mardell Ployhar, Assistant
Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Leo J. Gallagher, Lewis and Clark County Attorney, Helena, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: August 6, 2014
Decided: August 26, 2014
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating
Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not
serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this
Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana
Reports.
¶2 Shawn Weller appeals from the District Court’s Order of November 26, 2013,
denying his petition for postconviction relief. We affirm.
¶3 Weller filed a timely petition for postconviction relief arising from the July 2012
revocation of his suspended sentence and committing him to serve the remaining term of
his original sentence imposed in 2008 after his conviction for felony DUI, persistent
felony offender. Weller contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in the
revocation proceedings even though he acknowledges that he specifically fired his
attorney and the record reflects that he requested to represent himself. Weller also
contends that many of the people he dealt with in this process were biased and prejudiced
against him and that they repeatedly lied and committed all manner of criminal offenses.
As the District Court stated, Weller “does not clearly delineate” his claims and “it is
difficult to discern what his claims actually are.”
¶4 After reviewing the record, it is clear that the District Court properly concluded
that Weller’s claims could have been raised on direct appeal and, because they were not,
they are procedurally barred. Section 46-5-105(2), MCA. In addition, the District Court
2
properly concluded that Weller failed to provide any material support for his claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel, or for any other cognizable claims.
¶5 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) of
our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. The issues in
this case are controlled by settled Montana law which the District Court correctly applied.
¶6 Affirmed.
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
We Concur:
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ JIM RICE
3