Submitted on Briefs: April 29, 2015.
Released for Publication June 18, 2015.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twenty-First Judicial District, In and For the County of Ravalli, Cause No. DC-06-83. Honorable James A. Haynes, Presiding Judge.
For Appellant: Matthew Montgomery, self-represented, Glendive, Montana.
For Appellee: Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Katie F. Schulz, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana; William E. Fulbright, Ravalli County Attorney, Hamilton, Montana.
BETH BAKER. We concur: MIKE McGRATH, JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA, MICHAEL E WHEAT, PATRICIA COTTER. Justice Beth Baker delivered the Opinion of the Court.
[379 Mont. 354] Beth Baker,
[¶1] Matthew Montgomery appeals an order of the District Court for the Twenty-First Judicial District, Ravalli County, denying his motion to vacate his conviction and dismiss the charges against him. The issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred in concluding that it had subject matter jurisdiction over the State's case against Montgomery.
[¶2] We affirm.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
[¶3] In May 2006, Montgomery was charged with felony counts of sexual assault and sexual abuse concerning four alleged child victims. Following amendment of the information to add new charges regarding the same victims, Montgomery and the State eventually reached a plea agreement. Montgomery pleaded guilty to two counts of felony sexual assault in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining counts and the State's withdrawal of the persistent felony offender notification. The District Court sentenced Montgomery in January 2007 to twenty years in prison with ten years suspended for each felony, to run consecutively. In addition, Montgomery's probation in a 2003 case was revoked, and he received an additional consecutive twenty-year prison sentence.
[¶4] In October 2008, Montgomery, representing himself, filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The District Court denied the motion and we affirmed. State v. Montgomery, 2010 MT 193, 357 Mont. 348, 239 P.3d 929. Montgomery then filed with the
District Court a motion for summary judgment, in which he attempted to challenge his plea and resurrect his earlier ineffective assistance of counsel claims. The court ...