Raugust v. State, 2003 MT 367

Summary

The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed the dismissal of Richard Raugust’s petition for postconviction relief as untimely. The court held that the petition was filed after the one-year statutory deadline and that the asserted newly discovered evidence did not satisfy the requirements for an exception to that deadline. The court also rejected related ineffective-assistance claims as untimely.

Holdings

1. A Montana postconviction petition must be filed within one year after the conviction becomes final, and when a direct appeal has been taken, finality occurs after the time for seeking United States Supreme Court review expires. Raugust's conviction became final on August 30, 2000, making August 30, 2001 the filing deadline; his petition was untimely whether measured by the September 14 attempted filing or the September 24 accepted filing.
2. Raugust's claims concerning allegedly mishandled shotgun evidence and an eyewitness's purported confession did not qualify for the newly discovered evidence exception to the one-year postconviction limitations period because he failed to establish timely discovery through diligence and failed to show that the evidence was sufficiently material to probably produce a different result at a new trial.
3. Raugust's ineffective-assistance claims were not newly discovered evidence because he knew or should have known of the alleged trial deficiencies at the time of trial, and therefore the claims were barred as untimely.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Raugust's petition for postconviction relief was timely filed under § 46-21-102, MCA.
2. Whether alleged newly discovered evidence concerning the handling of a shotgun and an eyewitness's purported confession qualified for the statutory exception to the postconviction-relief limitations period.
3. Whether Raugust's ineffective-assistance claims could proceed when he knew or should have known of the alleged deficiencies at the time of trial or appeal.

Disposition

affirmed