DAVID WAYNE NELSON,
Petitioner and Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MONTANA,
Respondent and Respondent.
APPEAL FROM: The District Court of the Twenty-First Judicial District,
In and For the County of Ravalli, Cause No. DC 98-182,
Honorable Jeffrey H. Langton, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
David Wayne Nelson, pro se, Deer Lodge, Montana
For Respondent:
Hon. Mike McGrath, Montana Attorney General, Jim Wheelis,
Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
George H. Corn, Ravalli County Attorney, Geoffrey T. Mahar,
Deputy County Attorney, Hamilton, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: March 15, 2006
Decided: June 20, 2006
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice James C. Nelson 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 In November of 1999, following a jury trial in the District Court for the Twenty-First
Judicial District, Ravalli County, David Wayne Nelson was convicted of aggravated
kidnapping, robbery, and two counts of accountability for felony assault. Nelson appealed
and we remanded for re-sentencing. State v. Nelson,
. Following re-sentencing, Nelson filed a pro se Petition for Post-Conviction
Relief wherein he claimed that his attorney had provided ineffective assistance at trial.
Nelson now appeals pro se from the District Court’s dismissal of his Petition.
¶3 We conclude that our decision in this case is appropriately rendered by memorandum
opinion pursuant to Section 1, Paragraph 3(d) of our 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as
amended in 2003.
¶4 It is manifest on the face of the briefs and the record before us that this appeal is
without merit. Given this Court’s limited resources, and the hundreds of parties awaiting
resolution of meritorious appeals, we will not render a full written analysis explaining the
numerous shortcomings in the instant appellate arguments challenging the District Court’s
decision.
2
¶5 We are consistently willing to make accommodations for pro se litigants by relaxing
the technical requirements which do not impact fundamental bases for appeal. However,
appellants ultimately have the burden of establishing error by a district court. State v. Bailey,
