Melvin Gatlin v. State
This text of 2011 MT 305N (Melvin Gatlin v. State) 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
December 6 2011
DA 11-0319
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2011 MT 305N
MELVIN LEE GATLIN, JR.,
Petitioner and Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MONTANA,
Respondent and Appellee.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and For the County of Missoula, Cause No. DV 11-534 Honorable Karen S. Townsend, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Melvin Lee Gatlin, self-represented; Shelby, Montana
For Appellee:
Steve Bullock, Montana Attorney General; Mardell Ployhar, Assistant Attorney General; Helena, Montana
Fred R. Van Valkenburg, Missoula County Attorney; Jason T. Marks, Deputy County Attorney; Missoula, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: November 16, 2011
Decided: December 6, 2011
Filed:
__________________________________________ Clerk Justice Jim Rice 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 quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana
Reports.
¶2 Melvin Lee Gatlin appeals from the order entered by the Fourth Judicial District
Court, Missoula County, denying his petition for postconviction relief, which challenged
his conviction upon guilty plea of two counts of robbery. Gatlin’s case was previously
before this Court on appeal. State v. Gatlin, 2009 MT 348, 353 Mont. 163, 219 P.3d 874.
¶3 Gatlin was originally charged with robbing two casinos in Missoula County and a
grocery store in Butte-Silver Bow County in December of 2007. Gatlin, ¶¶ 5-7. He was
arrested in Butte and detained in the Butte-Silver Bow County jail during the pendency of
the Butte-Silver Bow County proceeding. Gatlin, ¶ 9. Charges were filed in Missoula
County, but no further action was taken until after Gatlin entered a no contest plea and
was sentenced in Butte-Silver Bow County, when he was then transferred to Missoula
County. Gatlin, ¶¶ 9-10. Gatlin filed a motion to dismiss the Missoula County charges
on the grounds that the Information had not been timely filed, and he had not been
informed of his right to counsel at his initial appearance. Gatlin, ¶ 12. After his motion
was denied, Gatlin pled guilty to the Missoula County charges pursuant to a plea
agreement in which he reserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss.
2 Gatlin, ¶ 14. This Court reversed his Missoula County convictions on the ground that
Gatlin had not been advised of his right to counsel at his initial appearance, and we
instructed the District Court to dismiss the charges without prejudice because Gatlin had
not been prejudiced by the delay. Gatlin, ¶¶ 23, 29. After remand, the Missoula County
robbery charges were re-filed, and Gatlin thereafter entered guilty pleas to the charges.
¶4 Gatlin then filed a petition for postconviction relief, claiming ineffective
assistance of counsel and failure of the prosecutor to disclose material evidence. The
District Court denied the petition, and on appeal, Gatlin offers new arguments, claiming
that his two Missoula County robbery convictions violate his constitutional double
jeopardy and equal protection rights. The State argues that Gatlin waived these claims by
pleading guilty to the charges, forfeited them by not raising them before the District
Court, failed to establish grounds for plain error review, and failed to sufficiently develop
a legal argument and basis for his claims. The State also contests the claims on their
merits.
¶5 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 briefs and the record on appeal, we conclude that the appellant has
not met his burden of persuasion or demonstrated reversible error.
¶6 Affirmed.
/S/ JIM RICE
3 We concur:
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS /S/ PATRICIA COTTER /S/ BETH BAKER /S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2011 MT 305N, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melvin-gatlin-v-state-mont-2011.