10/03/2017
DA 16-0525
Case Number: DA 16-0525
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2017 MT 242N
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL JEFFERY ROOT,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Second Judicial District,
In and For the County of Butte-Silver Bow, Cause No. DC-12-116
Honorable Brad Newman, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Michael Jeffery Root (Self-Represented), Shelby, Montana
For Appellee:
Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, C. Mark Fowler, Assistant
Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Eileen Joyce, Butte-Silver Bow County Attorney, Butte, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: September 13, 2017
Decided: October 3, 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 Michael Root (Root) appeals from a District Court order denying Root’s motion to
compel the State to provide criminal histories of witnesses who testified at his jury trial in
February 2013. We affirm.
¶3 On July 27, 2012, Lawrence Lee was driving his truck when he picked up two
individuals, Root and a juvenile referred to as S.R., in Butte, Montana. The passengers
asked for a ride up the hill to Walkerville. During this ride, Lawrence Lee was stabbed
by Root in the arm and neck and cut on his hand. After S.R. jumped out of the truck and
Root was forced out by Lee, S.R. and Root fled the scene.
¶4 On February 14, 2013, a jury convicted Root of attempted deliberate homicide, a
felony. The jury also made a separate finding that Root knowingly displayed, brandished
or otherwise used a dangerous weapon in the commission to such offense. On August 15,
2013, the District Court sentenced Root to a term of forty years at the Montana State
Prison for the underlying offense, and to a consecutive ten-year term of imprisonment for
the weapon enhancement. Root subsequently filed an appeal. On October 27, 2015, this
2
Court affirmed Root’s conviction. State v. Root, 2015 MT 310, ¶¶ 30-31,
381 Mont. 314,
359 P.3d 1088.
¶5 On July 6, 2016, Root filed a motion to compel criminal records of three State
witnesses and a fourth witness who was called by the defense. In his motion, Root also
requested records from adult probation and parole, the sheriff’s office, and any other
correctional institution related to any criminal placements of each of the witnesses at
issue. Lastly, Root requested documents maintained by the County Attorney’s Office and
other Butte-Silver Bow County law enforcement agencies related to any plea bargains,
deals, gifts, or inducements offered to the witnesses at issue. Root contends that he needs
this information to assist in preparation of a petition for post-conviction relief.
¶6 “A district court’s decision to grant or deny a post-trial motion is discretionary.
We review such rulings in criminal cases for an abuse of discretion. The burden of
demonstrating such an abuse is on the party seeking reversal of the district court’s
ruling.” State v. Ferre,
2014 MT 96, ¶ 11,
374 Mont. 428,
322 P.3d 1047 (citing State v.
Griffin,
2007 MT 289, ¶ 10,
339 Mont. 465,
172 P.3d 1223; State v. Sheehan,
2005 MT
305, ¶ 18,
329 Mont. 417,
124 P.3d 1119)).
¶7 There is nothing in Montana’s statutory law that allows a petitioner to obtain
discovery before a petition for post-conviction relief is filed. Here, Root is making a
discovery request. However, the period for discovery in his case is long overdue. By the
time Root filed his motion to compel, it had been over three years since his sentencing
and nine months since this Court affirmed his conviction and sentencing. We hold that
3
the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Root’s motion to compel
discovery.
¶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.
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
We Concur:
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
/S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ JIM RICE
4
