Self-represented Petitioner Richard Wayne Sparks has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, seeking immediate release from his alleged illegal prosecution. From a review of the petition, it appears that as of October 20, 2014, Sparks has a felony charge of assault with a weapon pending in the Second Judicial District Court. Sparks claims that the application for leave to file an information by affidavit names another defendant and not him. Sparks therefore contends that he was not prosecuted correctly and that the County Attorney failed to file an information in a timely manner. He requests habeas relief and dismissal of Cause No. DC-14-193, pursuant to § 46-11-203(1) and (2), MCA.
Sparks is correct that a "person imprisoned or otherwise restrained of liberty within this state may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of imprisonment or restraint and, if illegal, to be delivered from the imprisonment or restraint." Section 46-22-101(1), MCA. However, Sparks's request for habeas relief is not appropriate.
We requested and reviewed the case register and the application for leave to file information, dated October 17, 2014, for Cause No. DC-14-193. Sparks currently has counsel to represent him in his proceedings. The only name listed in the charging document as defendant is Richard Wayne Sparks. Sparks was charged with assault with a weapon, a felony, after an altercation with a female in August 2014. Sparks has not demonstrated that either an illegal prosecution or a failure to file an information in a timely manner has occurred, as he alleges. Sections 46-11-201 and -203, MCA. Thus, he is not entitled to habeas relief.
Sparks claims that other problems exist with the District Court's orders for his criminal proceedings, including pretrial conference and omnibus hearing. Sparks contends that his concerns include ineffective assistance of counsel and "show a pattern of procedural irregularities surrounding this matter[.]" Sparks neglects to provide any documentary evidence, factual support or orders for his claims, which may be more appropriate for appeal or postconviction relief following conviction and sentencing. In the absence of such supporting information, Sparks has failed to present a prima facie case. Consequently, it is inappropriate for this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction here. M. R. App. P. 14(5).
We caution Sparks that while represented by counsel, only his counsel should file motions and papers with a court on his behalf. State v. Samples, 2005 MT 210, ¶ 15, 328 Mont. 242, 119 P.3d 1191 (internal citations omitted).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.
The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to ...