of supervisory control, Scott Anthony Teeters petitions for
relief from an eight-year parole restriction imposed on his
2012 sentence for aggravated assault by the Twenty-Second
Judicial District Court, Stillwater County. Teeters contends
that the District Court is proceeding under a mistake of law.
December 2011, the State charged Teeters with felony
aggravated assault of his wife. The State filed new charges
in January 2012 of felony tampering with a witness or
informant; misdemeanor criminal contempt; and misdemeanor
violation of order of protection. Teeters appeared with
counsel and pleaded guilty to all charges in both
proceedings. The District Court sentenced Teeters to the
Montana State Prison for a fifteen-year term with no time
suspended for the first felony, and also ordered "that a
parole restriction of eight (8) years be, and is hereby
imposed." The reasons for the parole restriction were
stated by the court as follows:
1. The extreme level of violence exhibited against the people
the Defendant should be loving;
2. The extreme level of violence exhibited by the Defendant
is a problem of the highest order for society;
3. The Defendant's mental health diagnoses identified by
Dr. Bruce Chessen have an extreme impact on society;
4. It will take at least eight (8) years of rehabilitation
before the Defendant will be in a position to be paroled; and
5. The need to protect the victims in this case.
November 28, 2012 Sentence and Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc, the
court added this paragraph:
FURTHER, the [c]ourt recommends that the Defendant receive a
complete mental health evaluation upon entrance to the
prison, with all appropriate follow up and treatment that is
available at the prison or other correctional settings that
are available to help the Defendant confront and deal with
the mental health and emotional issues the Defendant suffers
other felony, Teeters received a ten-year suspended prison
term, to run consecutively to his first sentence.
did not appeal from the sentences imposed in these cases, but
sought relief with the Sentence Review Division. In November
2012, the Sentence Review Division concluded that his
sentence was neither inadequate nor excessive. In August
2013, Teeters filed a petition for postconviction relief and
a petition to withdraw his guilty plea. The court denied and
dismissed both petitions. In January 2014, Teeters again
moved the court to withdraw his guilty plea and filed an
amended petition for postconviction relief, which the
District Court denied. Teeters then filed a "Motion to
Drop Parole Restriction, " which the District Court
denied. Teeters followed this with a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus, which the court denied. In 2016, Teeters filed
a "Motion to Correct Wrongfully Implied Erroneous
Sentence by Dropping Parole Restriction, " which was
instant petition, Teeters relies upon his mental health
status as noted in the Pre-Sentence Investigation conducted
in his aggravated assault proceeding, and the sentencing
court's citation of his mental health issues, to argue
that his parole restriction violates § 46-18-222(2),
MCA, a mental capacity exception to the imposition of a
statutorily mandated parole restriction. However, while
aggravated assault is an offense for which a mandatory
minimum sentence is required under § 46-18-205(2)(b),
MCA, it is not an offense for which restrictions on parole
eligibility are statutorily mandated, and subject to, as
Teeters argues, certain statutory exceptions to imposition.
Section 46-18-222, MCA. Rather, the parole restriction
imposed in this case was purely a discretionary matter with
the sentencing court and imposed pursuant to its general
sentencing authority. Section 46-18-202(2), MCA; State v.
Rickman, 2008 MT 142, ¶ 32, 343 Mont. 120, 183 P.3d
49. Teeters's argument that a statutory exception bars
the imposition of a mandatory parole restriction simply does
not apply in this case, because a statutorily-mandated parole
restriction was not imposed.
has not demonstrated that the District Court is proceeding
under a mistake of law. Redding v. Mont. First Judicial
Dist. Ct., 2012 MT 144A, ¶ 18, 365 Mont. 316, 281
P.3d 189 (internal citation omitted); M. R. App. P. 14(3).
Indeed, there is no current "proceeding" over which
this Court could exercise control. The District Court simply
exercised its discretion in recommending further evaluation
and treatment for Teeters pursuant to § 46-18-101
(2)(d), MCA, and imposing the sentence with a parole
eligibility restriction, as authorized. See §
46-18-202(2), MCA (2011).
District Court has considered all of Teeters's challenges
to his parole restriction and correctly denied relief.
Teeters has now challenged his parole restriction in at least
three proceedings before this Court and the District Court.
The issue is resolved. ...