Peterson v. State

2017 MT 165 (2017) · Supreme Court of Montana · July 5, 2017 · No. DA 15-0773

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Bryce Everett Peterson’s petition for postconviction relief. The court held that the petition was untimely because Peterson’s conviction became final when his direct appeal was dismissed, and it rejected his reliance on the newly discovered evidence exception as unsupported. The court also concluded that certain ineffective-assistance claims were barred by res judicata or were otherwise time-barred.

Court
Supreme Court of Montana
Writing for the Court
Dirk M. Sandefur; Mike McGrath; Beth Baker; Laurie McKinnon; James Jeremiah Shea
Jurisdiction
Montana
Decision date
July 5, 2017
Docket number
DA 15-0773
Procedural posture
Peterson appealed the denial of his petition for postconviction relief. The district court found the petition timely but denied it on the merits; the State cross-asserted that the petition was untimely.
Standard of review
The court reviewed denial of postconviction relief for clearly erroneous factual findings and correct conclusions of law.
Precedential value
published precedential opinion
Parties
Bryce Everett Peterson v. State of Montana
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

state post-conviction reliefpost-conviction reliefstatutory interpretationineffective assistanceappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal postconviction reliefcriminal procedureappellate procedurestatutory interpretation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Peterson's petition for postconviction relief was timely under Montana Code Annotated § 46-21-102(1).
  2. Whether Peterson established newly discovered evidence sufficient to invoke the exception in Montana Code Annotated § 46-21-102(2).

Holdings

  1. A conviction entered upon an Alford guilty plea becomes final when the defendant's direct-appeal remedies expire or are exhausted, and a later motion to withdraw the plea does not toll or extend the deadline for filing a postconviction petition. Peterson's conviction became final on November 5, 2010, making his December 17, 2014 petition untimely.
  2. Peterson failed to provide factual support showing that the purported evidence qualified as newly discovered evidence that, if proved and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would establish that he did not engage in the criminal conduct for which he was convicted.

Key quotations

Thus, the deadlines for moving to withdraw a guilty plea and petitioning for postconviction relief run concurrently from the exhaustion or expiration of a defendant’s right to direct appeal from the conviction. (¶ 9)
Because Peterson failed to provide factual support for his claim of newly discovered evidence, we conclude that the exception of § 46-21-102(2), MCA, does not excuse Peterson’s failure to timely file his petition for postconviction relief. (¶ 20)

Factual background

Peterson was charged with violent assault and kidnapping and entered Alford guilty pleas on the eve of trial. The district court sentenced him to seventy years in prison with twenty years suspended. After dismissing his direct appeal and unsuccessfully seeking withdrawal of his pleas, Peterson filed a postconviction petition alleging evidentiary, discovery, prosecutorial-misconduct, and ineffective-assistance claims, including purported newly discovered police reports concerning the victim.

Procedural history

Peterson pleaded guilty under North Carolina v. Alford and was sentenced in 2009. He filed a direct appeal, voluntarily dismissed it, later moved to withdraw his pleas, and the Montana Supreme Court affirmed denial of that motion in 2013. He filed the present postconviction petition in December 2014; the district court rejected the State's timeliness argument but denied relief on the merits. The Montana Supreme Court held the petition untimely and affirmed the denial on the right-result, wrong-reason rationale.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…