January 6 2015
DA 14-0393
Case Number: DA 14-0393
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2015 MT 3N
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
HEATHER ERIN WYLIE,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Second Judicial District,
In and For the County of Butte-Silver Bow, Cause No. DC-09-155
Honorable Brad Newman, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Heather Erin Wylie, (Self-Represented), Billings, Montana
For Appellee:
Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, C. Mark Fowler, Assistant
Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Eileen Joyce, Butte-Silver Bow County Attorney, Butte, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: December 17, 2014
Decided: January 6, 2015
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 Heather Wylie appeals from the District Court’s order dated June 2, 2014, denying
her motion under M. R. Civ. P. 60(b) for relief from her prior judgment of conviction and
sentence. We affirm.
¶3 In 2010 Wylie faced a number of charges in Butte-Silver Bow and Lewis and
Clark Counties. In July 2010 she entered a global plea agreement disposing of all the
charges. The District Court ordered a pre-sentence investigation, conducted a sentencing
hearing on October 28, 2010, and sentenced Wylie to imprisonment and restitution.
Wylie did not appeal, but beginning in 2011 commenced several unsuccessful
proceedings seeking relief from her conviction or sentence. State v. Wylie, 2012 MT
118N (motion to withdraw guilty pleas); Wylie v. Daly, Montana Supreme Court No.
OP 13-0596 (petition for habeas corpus); Wylie v. Balaz, 2014 MT 302N (professional
negligence claim against her former attorney).
¶4 While Wylie filed the present proceeding under M. R. Civ. P. 60(b), the District
Court correctly concluded that Rule 60(b) is a rule of civil procedure and does not apply.
The District Court also correctly concluded that the grounds for relief raised in the
2
current motion are “little more than a detailed recitation of the claims already advanced
by the Defendant in her previous petition for postconviction relief and her previous
motion to withdraw her guilty pleas.” The District Court properly determined that Wylie
was not entitled to any relief under statutes that might be applicable, including
§§ 46-16-105, -702, and § 46-21-101, MCA.
¶5 In State v. Wylie, 2012 MT 118N, this Court affirmed the District Court’s
determination that Wylie had entered her guilty pleas knowingly and voluntarily. Having
knowingly and voluntarily entered guilty pleas and having been subjected to a lawful
sentence, Wylie is precluded from attacking her pleas or the evidence that supported the
charges. Ellenburg v. Chase, 2004 MT 66, ¶21, 320 Mont. 315, 87 P.3d 473.
¶6 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 legal and are controlled by settled Montana law, which the District Court
properly applied.
¶7 Affirmed.
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
We Concur:
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
/S/ JIM RICE
3