ZACHARY SHAFFER,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MONTANA,
Defendant and Appellee.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twenty-Second Judicial District,
In and For the County of Carbon, Cause No. DV 16-79
Honorable Blair Jones, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Zachary Shaffer (Self-Represented), Shelby, Montana
For Appellee:
Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, C. Mark Fowler, Assistant
Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Alex Nixon, Carbon County Attorney, Red Lodge, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: August 9, 2017
Decided: August 29, 2017
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Chief Justice Mike McGrath 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 Zachary G. Shaffer (Shaffer) appeals from a September 19, 2016 District Court
order denying his petition for postconviction relief (PCR). We affirm.
¶3 In 2013, a jury convicted Shaffer of felony assault on a police officer. In a
separate criminal proceeding, Shaffer entered a nolo contendere plea to intimidation.
Following sentencing, Shaffer appealed claiming ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC).
This Court affirmed in State v. Shaffer, No. DA 13-0355,
.
¶4 In 2015, Shaffer filed a petition for PCR asserting procedural error by the District
Court. The District Court denied his petition finding Shaffer had failed to provide factual
support for his claims. This Court affirmed in Shaffer v. State, No. DA 15-0397,
. In August 2016, Shaffer filed a second petition for PCR. The
District Court determined the petition was not permitted under Montana law and
dismissed. Schaffer appeals.
2
¶5 This Court reviews a district court’s denial of a petition for postconviction relief to
determine whether its findings of fact are clearly erroneous and its conclusions of law are
correct. Whitlow v. State,
. A person seeking PCR must
raise all grounds for relief in the original petition. Section 46-21-105(1)(a), MCA. The
court must dismiss a second petition unless that petition raises grounds for relief that
could not reasonably have been raised in the original petition. Section 46-21-105(1)(b),
MCA. IAC claims in an original petition for PCR may not be raised in a second petition
for PCR. Section 46-21-105(2), MCA. Postconviction relief is not available upon claims
that could have been raised on direct appeal. Lacey v. State,
.)
¶7 Shaffer’s second petition for PCR did not raise any issues that either were not or
could not have been raised in the original petition or on direct appeal. The District
Court’s conclusions of law were correct. Shaffer’s petition was properly dismissed.
¶8 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 the Court, the case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear
application of applicable standards of review.
¶9 Affirmed.
3
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
We Concur:
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ JIM RICE
4
