No. 03-647
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2005 MT 110
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
LEVI DANIELS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twentieth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Lake, Cause No. DC 99–30
Honorable C. B. McNeil, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Kristina Guest, Assistant Appellate Defender,
Helena, Montana
For Respondent:
Hon. Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Micheal S. Wellenstein,
Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Robert J. Long, Lake County Attorney, Polson, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: March 16, 2005
Decided: May 4, 2005
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Chief Justice Karla M. Gray delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 While still a minor, Levi Daniels pled guilty to burglary and criminal mischief and
entered an Alford plea to deliberate homicide by accountability in the Twentieth Judicial
District Court, Lake County. Judgment was entered against him. He appeals the District
Court's denial of his subsequent petition for postconviction relief. We affirm.
¶2 On November 4, 2004, we granted Daniels' motion to voluntarily withdraw an issue
concerning his 25-year suspended sentence, which he briefed on appeal. Thus, the sole issue
before us is whether the District Court had jurisdiction to proceed over Daniels' case.
BACKGROUND
¶3 In March of 1999, the State of Montana moved the District Court, pursuant to § 41-5-
206, MCA (1997), for leave to file an information charging Daniels with burglary,
misdemeanor theft, deliberate homicide and use of violence to coerce gang membership. The
District Court granted the State leave to file the Information, stating in its order, "[h]aving
reviewed the Affidavit in support of the Information filed herewith, the Court finds probable
cause to believe that the Defendant committed the alleged offenses and that the seriousness
of the offense[s] and the protection of the community require treatment of the Defendant
beyond that offered by juvenile facilities." At that time, Daniels was a few days shy of his
sixteenth birthday. The District Court also granted the State's motion to amend the
Information to add a charge of felony criminal mischief.
2
¶4 In May of 1999, the District Court conducted a brief hearing to address the findings
required under § 41-5-206, MCA, before an information may be filed against a youth in
district court. Daniels was present at the hearing, with his counsel. The prosecutor stated
the court had already found probable cause and that the purpose of the hearing was to
determine the seriousness of the offense and whether the interests of the community justified
the transfer of the case into district court. The prosecutor then stated it was her understand-
ing that, rather than going through a hearing, Daniels would be stipulating that the court
could make those findings. Defense counsel stated, "That's correct, Your Honor." The
prosecutor then volunteered to prepare an order and the hearing ended.
¶5 Daniels and the State later entered into a plea agreement. The State moved to dismiss
the charges of theft and use of violence to coerce gang membership; Daniels pled guilty to
burglary and criminal mischief and pled to deliberate homicide by accountability pursuant
to North Carolina v. Alford (1970), 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162. The District
Court sentenced Daniels and entered judgment.
¶6 In March of 2002, Daniels filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief. The
District Court appointed the Appellate Defender Office to represent him and that office filed
an amended petition for postconviction relief on his behalf. After the State filed a response,
the District Court denied postconviction relief, in relevant part, on grounds that the
requirements for a transfer hearing to district court had been met. Daniels appeals from that
portion of the District Court's order.
3
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶7 We review a district court's denial of a petition for postconviction relief to determine
whether the court's findings are clearly erroneous and whether its conclusions of law are
correct. Peña v. State, 2004 MT 293, ¶ 14, 323 Mont. 347, ¶ 14, 100 P.3d 154, ¶ 14.
DISCUSSION
¶8 Did the District Court have jurisdiction to proceed over Daniels' case?
¶9 Daniels contends the District Court lacked jurisdiction to proceed over his case
because he never expressly waived his right to a hearing pursuant to § 41-5-206(3), MCA.
He contends his counsel's agreement with the prosecutor that he intended to waive the
hearing--instead of his own personal waiver of that right--did not constitute a valid waiver
of his right to a hearing.
¶10 The State contends we need not reach the merits of this issue because Daniels' claim
is time-barred. We agree.
¶11 Daniels did not file a direct appeal. As a result, his conviction became final when his
time for filing an appeal expired in December of 1999. Pursuant to § 46-21-102, MCA, he
had one year from December of 1999 to file a petition for postconviction relief. He did not
file his original, pro se petition until March of 2002.
¶12 Daniels mistakenly contends the absence of jurisdiction he claims in this case
transcends the statutory one-year time limit for petitions for postconviction relief. Both
jurisdictional and nonjurisdictional claims are subject to the time limitation in § 46-21-102,
MCA. Peña, ¶ 38. The time bar applies to all claims except claims alleging the existence
4
of newly-discovered evidence which, if proved and viewed in light of the evidence as a
whole, would establish that the petitioner is actually or legally innocent. Peña, ¶ 27.
Daniels has made no such claim. We conclude Daniels' claim that the District Court lacked
jurisdiction is time-barred under § 46-21-102, MCA.
¶13 We will affirm a correct result even if the district court reached that result for the
wrong reason. Raugust v. State, 2003 MT 367, ¶ 9, 319 Mont. 97, ¶ 9, 82 P.3d 890, ¶ 9
(citation omitted). We hold that the District Court did not err in denying Daniels' petition
for postconviction relief.
¶14 Affirmed.
/S/ KARLA M. GRAY
We concur:
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
/S/ PATRICIA O. COTTER
/S/ JOHN WARNER
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
5