Gary A. Oram Jr. v. State of Monta

2012 MT 182N
CourtMontana Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 21, 2012
Docket12-0154
StatusPublished

This text of 2012 MT 182N (Gary A. Oram Jr. v. State of Monta) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gary A. Oram Jr. v. State of Monta, 2012 MT 182N (Mo. 2012).

Opinion

August 21 2012

DA 12-0154

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2012 MT 182N

GARY A. ORAM, JR.,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Appellee.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, In and For the County of Beaverhead, Cause No. DC-11-13592 Honorable Loren Tucker, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Gary A. Oram, Jr. (Self-Represented), Missoula, Montana

For Appellee:

Steve Bullock, Montana Attorney General, C. Mark Fowler, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana

Jed Fitch, Beaverhead County Attorney, Dillon, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: August 8, 2012

Decided: August 21, 2012

Filed:

__________________________________________ Clerk Justice James C. Nelson 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 list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports.

¶2 Gary A. Oram, Jr., a self-represented litigant, has appealed the District Court’s

February 27, 2012 denial of his petition for postconviction relief. The District Court

determined that Oram’s petition was not properly verified as required by § 46-21-103,

MCA. The court dismissed Oram’s petition without prejudice, thus leaving him the

ability to amend his petition and provide a more appropriate record. Nevertheless, Oram

appealed. Consequently, any further attempts at postconviction relief would be time

barred.

¶3 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) of

our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for noncitable memorandum opinions.

Having reviewed the record and the arguments, we affirm the District Court’s order.

/S/ JAMES C. NELSON

We Concur:

/S/ MIKE McGRATH /S/ JIM RICE /S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT /S/ BRIAN MORRIS

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2012 MT 182N, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gary-a-oram-jr-v-state-of-monta-mont-2012.