Parrish v. State

2006 MT 315N

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Decided: December 5, 2006
• Docket: 06-0166
• Status: Published

Opinion

No. DA 06-0166

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2006 MT 315N

_____________________________________

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

GEORGE WILLIAM PARRISH,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, In and for the County of Flathead, Cause No. DV-05-778(A), The Honorable Ted O. Lympus, Presiding Judge.

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

George William Parrish (pro se), Deer Lodge, Montana

For Respondent:

Hon. Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Mark W. Mattioli, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana

Ed Corrigan, Flathead County Attorney; Daniel M. Guzynski, Deputy County Attorney, Kalispell, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: October 18, 2006

Decided: December 5, 2006 Filed:

____________________________________________ Clerk Chief Justice Karla M. Gray delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal

Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be

cited as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme

Court and its case title, Supreme Court 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 A jury in the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, convicted George

William Parrish of two counts of sexual intercourse without consent and two counts of

sexual assault. We affirmed the convictions on direct appeal. See State v. Parrish, 2005

MT 112, 327 Mont. 88, 111 P.3d 671. Here, Parrish appeals the District Court’s denial of

his petition for postconviction relief. We affirm.

¶3 Parrish, who appears pro se, lists seven issues in his brief on appeal.

¶4 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section 1, Paragraph 3(d) of

our 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, which provides for

memorandum opinions. The issues Parrish raises on appeal are clearly controlled by

settled Montana law. The issues concerning two of his claims--that his trial counsel was

ineffective for failing to timely pursue a Batson challenge and that the trial judge should

have independently held a Batson hearing--were or could have been raised on direct

appeal and, as a result, may not be raised in a petition for postconviction relief. See Ford

v. State, 2005 MT 151, ¶ 14, 327 Mont. 378, ¶ 14, 114 P.3d 244, ¶ 14 (citation omitted).

2 Parrish’s remaining claims are barred because he did not support them with appropriate

facts and legal authority as required by § 46-21-104(1)(c) and (2), MCA.

¶5 Affirmed.

/S/ KARLA M. GRAY

We Concur:

/S/ JAMES C. NELSON /S/ PATRICIA COTTER /S/ JIM RICE /S/ BRIAN MORRIS