Camarillo v. State, 2005 MT 29, 326 Mont. 35

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Marlon Camarillo's petition for postconviction relief. The court held that his claims concerning the legality of his sentence, restitution, and disparate sentencing were untimely and procedurally barred because they could have been raised on direct appeal. The court applied Pena v. State to reject treating an allegedly illegal sentence exceeding statutory authority as a subject-matter-jurisdiction defect.

Holdings

1. An allegedly illegal sentence that exceeds statutory authority does not divest the sentencing court of subject matter jurisdiction; the claim is nonjurisdictional for purposes of Montana's postconviction-relief statutes.
2. The petition was untimely because it was filed more than one year after the conviction became final, and no applicable statutory exception was established.
3. Claims that could have been raised on direct appeal but were not raised may not be brought in a petition for postconviction relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court erred in denying Camarillo's petition for postconviction relief.
2. Whether Camarillo's challenge to the legality of his sentence was jurisdictional and therefore exempt from the statutory time bar.
3. Whether the petition was barred because the claims could have been raised on direct appeal and was untimely because it was filed more than one year after the conviction became final.

Disposition

affirmed