Home/Montana Supreme Court/In Re Petition of Gray

In Re Petition of Gray

908 P.2d 1352, 274 Mont. 1, 52 State Rptr. 1041, 1995 Mont. LEXIS 290
CourtMontana Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 19, 1995
Docket95-376
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 908 P.2d 1352 (In Re Petition of Gray) 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
In Re Petition of Gray, 908 P.2d 1352, 274 Mont. 1, 52 State Rptr. 1041, 1995 Mont. LEXIS 290 (Mo. 1995).

Opinion

ORDER

Petitioner William Harrison Gray, appearing pro se, moves this Court for permission to allow him to proceed with a petition for post-conviction relief even though the five-year statute of limitation has expired.

In 1986, Petitioner was charged and convicted of robbery. He was sentenced to 40 years in the Montana State Prison plus an additional *2 ten years for the use of a dangerous weapon, the ten years to be served consecutively.

A petitioner may file a petition for post conviction relief with this Court under § 46-21-101, MCA, if he believes his conviction is invalid due to substantive or procedural error. But, § 46-21-102, MCA, provides that such petitions must be filed “within 5 years of the date of the conviction.”

The post-conviction statute of limitation is a jurisdictional limit on litigation and its waiver may only be justified by a clear miscarriage of justice, one so obvious that the judgment is rendered a complete nullity. See, State v. Perry (1988), 232 Mont. 455, 758 P.2d 268; Smittie v. Lockhart (8th Cir. 1988), 843 F.2d 295.

Nine years have elapsed since Petitioner was convicted. Because his petition is untimely under § 46-21-102, MCA, Petitioner asks this Court to grant him leave to proceed with his petition beyond the five year limitation. Petitioner’s claim that he was ignorant of the law for several years and needed time to familiarize himself with the law in order to present a pro se defense, is not an adequate reason to set aside the statute.

Petitioner’s petition was not timely filed and is clearly barred under § 46-21-102, MCA, and should be dismissed.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition for post conviction relief is denied.

DATED this 19th day of September, 1995.

J. A. Turnage, Chief Justice James C. Nelson, Justice Karla M. Gray, Justice William E. Hunt, Sr., Justice William Leaphart, Justice

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

Related

Davis v. State
2008 MT 226 (Montana Supreme Court, 2008)
Montana Supreme Court Commission on the Unauthorized Practice of Law v. O'Neil
2006 MT 284 (Montana Supreme Court, 2006)
State v. Boese
2005 MT 31N (Montana Supreme Court, 2005)
Pena v. State
2004 MT 293 (Montana Supreme Court, 2004)
Veis v. State
2004 MT 139N (Montana Supreme Court, 2004)
Raugust v. State
2003 MT 367 (Montana Supreme Court, 2003)
State v. Pope
2003 MT 330 (Montana Supreme Court, 2003)
State v. Abe
2001 MT 260 (Montana Supreme Court, 2001)
Wanner v. Mahoney
2001 MT 234N (Montana Supreme Court, 2001)
State v. Bruce
2001 MT 3N (Montana Supreme Court, 2001)
Hallam v. State
2000 MT 236N (Montana Supreme Court, 2000)
Paige v. State
2000 MT 194N (Montana Supreme Court, 2000)
Webster v. Geico Ins. Co.
2000 MT 174N (Montana Supreme Court, 2000)
State v. Rosales
2000 MT 89 (Montana Supreme Court, 2000)
State v. Nichols
1999 MT 212 (Montana Supreme Court, 1999)
State v. Redcrow
1999 MT 95 (Montana Supreme Court, 1999)
Hawkins v. Mahoney
1999 MT 82 (Montana Supreme Court, 1999)
State v. Muschik
1998 MT 220N (Montana Supreme Court, 1998)
State v. Scott
1998 MT 102N (Montana Supreme Court, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
908 P.2d 1352, 274 Mont. 1, 52 State Rptr. 1041, 1995 Mont. LEXIS 290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-petition-of-gray-mont-1995.