No. 03-834
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2005 MT 131N
JAMES HOUGHTALING,
Petitioner and Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MONTANA,
Respondent and Respondent.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Gallatin, Cause No. DV 03-395,
The Honorable Mike Salvagni, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Mariah Eastman and Casey Moore, Gallatin County Public Defenders,
Bozeman, Montana
For Respondent:
Hon. Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Pamela P. Collins,
Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Marty Lambert, Gallatin County Attorney; Ashley Harrington, Deputy
County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: May 3, 2005
Decided: May 26, 2005
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Brian Morris delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be cited
as precedent. Its case title, Supreme Court cause number and disposition shall be included
in this Court's quarterly list of nonciteable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and
Montana Reports.
¶2 James Houghtaling (Houghtaling) appeals from the denial of his third petition for
postconviction relief by the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County. We affirm.
¶3 Houghtaling began filing serial motions after the District Court sentenced him to a
four year commitment with the Department of Corrections for fourth offense DUI, a felony.
The District Court and this Court reviewed and rejected each of Houghtaling’s motions and
appeals. Houghtaling filed his latest attempt to obtain collateral relief from his conviction
and sentence as an Application for Habeas Corpus (Application). We previously held that
Houghtaling’s Application was, in reality, a petition for postconviction relief and remanded
it to the District Court for consideration as such. The District Court determined
Houghtaling’s effort to constitute his third postconviction relief petition. We agree and
conclude that § 46-21-105(1)(b), MCA, bars Houghtaling’s latest attempt to collaterally
attack his conviction and sentence.
¶4 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) of our
1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, which provides for memorandum
opinions. Houghtaling’s issues are clearly barred from review under settled Montana law.
2
Houghtaling’s third postconviction petition attempt is time-barred by § 46-21-105(1)(b),
MCA.
¶5 Affirmed.
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
We Concur:
/S/ KARLA M. GRAY
/S/ JOHN WARNER
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
/S/ JIM RICE
3