Gary A. Oram Jr. v. State of Monta
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.
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
2012 MT 182N, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gary-a-oram-jr-v-state-of-monta-mont-2012.