RICHARD L. MERRILL,
Petitioner and Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MONTANA,
Respondent and Respondent.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Tenth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Fergus, Cause Nos. DV-02-91; DV-02-67; DC-01-
10
Honorable E. Wayne Phillips, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Richard L. Merrill, Pro Se, Deer Lodge, Montana
For Respondent:
Honorable Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Jim Wheelis, Assistant
Attorney General; Helena, Montana
Thomas P. Meissner, County Attorney; Monte J. Boettger, Deputy
County Attorney; Lewistown, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: July 24, 2003
Decided: September 9, 2003
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Chief Justice Karla M. Gray delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, the following decision shall not be cited as precedent. It shall be filed as
a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and shall be reported by case title,
Supreme Court cause number, and result to the State Reporter Publishing Company and to
West Group in the quarterly table of noncitable cases issued by this Court.
¶2 Richard L. Merrill, appearing pro se, appeals from the Order on Petition for Post
Conviction Relief entered by the Tenth Judicial District Court, Fergus County. We affirm.
¶3 Pursuant to a plea agreement in the underlying criminal proceeding, the District Court
sentenced Merrill to a sentence of 22 years, with 15 years suspended, for the felony offense
of sexual assault. Thereafter, Merrill timely filed a petition for postconviction relief which
the District Court denied. On appeal, Merrill sets forth issues of ineffective assistance of
counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, inaccurate calculation of restitution, judicial misconduct,
due process violations, and lack of an evidentiary hearing on his petition.
¶4 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to our Order dated February 11,
2003, amending Section I.3 of our 1996 Internal Operating Rules and providing for
memorandum opinions. On the face of the briefs and the record before us on appeal, it is
manifest that the appeal is without merit because the issues are clearly controlled by settled
Montana law which the District Court correctly interpreted and because it is clear that no
abuse of discretion occurred.
¶5 Affirmed.
2
/S/ KARLA M. GRAY
We concur:
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
/S/ JOHN WARNER
/S/ JIM REGNIER
3
