10/04/2016
DA 15-0667
Case Number: DA 15-0667
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2016 MT 252N
IN THE MATTER OF:
CHRISTOPHER DUFFY,
Petitioner and Appellant,
v.
JUSTICE COURT OF PARK COUNTY,
Respondent and Appellee.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Sixth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Park, Cause No. DV-2015-83
Honorable Brenda Gilbert, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Scott A. Albers, Attorney at Law, Great Falls, Montana
For Appellee:
Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Tammy A. Hinderman,
Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Bruce E. Becker, Park County Attorney, Livingston, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: September 14, 2016
Decided: October 4, 2016
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Beth Baker delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), 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 In March 2004, Christopher Duffy entered a guilty plea to partner or family
member assault in the Justice Court of Park County. A short time later he filed a motion
to withdraw the plea on the ground that it was involuntary. The Justice Court denied his
motion. Duffy then filed a petition for postconviction relief, which the District Court
denied. In Duffy v. State,
, we affirmed the
District Court’s conclusion that Duffy voluntarily entered his guilty plea.
¶3 In July 2015, Duffy filed a petition under M. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) to set aside his
judgment of conviction as void. He asserted that, at the time he entered his plea, the
Justice Court had not advised him that he had the right to a jury trial in district court. The
District Court denied Duffy’s petition. The court reasoned first that the Montana Rules
of Civil Procedure do not apply in criminal cases. The court also observed that Duffy
could challenge only the voluntary nature of his guilty plea—an issue that this Court
settled in Duffy. See Hardin v. State,
(“Generally, when a criminal defendant voluntarily and knowingly enters a guilty plea, he
waives the right to appeal all nonjurisdictional defects which occurred prior to entry of
2
the plea, including claims of constitutional violations.”). The District Court therefore
concluded that Duffy could not raise the jury trial issue in a petition to void his criminal
judgment. Duffy appeals.
¶4 We review a district court’s interpretation or construction of a statute or
procedural rule for correctness. State v. Osborn,
. Here, the District Court concluded correctly that Duffy could not rely on M.
R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) to challenge his criminal conviction because “[c]riminal defendants
seeking to challenge their sentences must follow the procedures established by the
Montana Rules of Criminal Procedure in Title 46, MCA.” Osborn, ¶ 14 (emphasis
added); see M. R. Civ. P. 1 (“These rules govern the procedure in all civil actions and
proceedings.”). Duffy sought available postconviction remedies more than a decade ago,
and he cannot avoid their concomitant procedural bar by invoking rules of civil procedure
under the guise of an allegedly “void judgment.” Because the District Court correctly
dismissed Duffy’s petition, we decline to address Duffy’s other arguments on appeal.
¶5 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of
our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion
of this Court, the case presents a question controlled by settled law. The District Court’s
order denying Duffy’s petition to set aside the 2004 judgment is affirmed.
/S/ BETH BAKER
3
We concur:
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ JIM RICE
4
