Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sharp v. State

Supreme Court of Montana

April 17, 2018

DARRELL D. SHARP, Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF MONTANA, and NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, HON. JON A. OLDENBURG, Presiding Judge, Respondents.

          ORDER

         Self-represented Petitioner Darrell Sharp seeks several remedies in his recently-filed petition, titled "WRIT of Mandate, Habeas for writ of Bail, Release Order." He indicates in his petition that he has a criminal proceeding, Cause No. DC-15-19, with Judge Oldenburg.

         Available electronic records indicate that Sharp has a criminal proceeding in the Ninth Judicial District Court, Toole County, for which Judge Oldenburg is the presiding judge. We amend the caption to indicate the correct judicial district. Sharp is also serving a 2010 prison sentence, which totals forty years, with twenty years suspended, for three felonies from two Toole County District Court cases.

         In his petition, Sharp presents a myriad of claims. Sharp seeks release on bail "in order to acquire an attorney of his own choice." He states that the presiding judge has violated his right to choose an attorney and his right to bail pending trial. He argues that "the lower court has failed to do its duty and has failed to protect" his state and federal rights. Sharp includes a history of his medical ailments and health conditions, contending that his release to bail is warranted for medical assistance for his various ailments. Sharp requests this Court to take judicial notice of an alleged assault by a prison official at Crossroads Correctional Center on August 1, 2014, which he alleges the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals "improperly dismissed . . . ." Sharp claims that prison officials have since re-classified him and held disciplinary hearings in violation of federal law. He believes that he has demonstrated "reasonable reasons" for "Immediate Injunctive Relief...." (Emphasis in original).

         We secured a copy of the District Court's case register. Judge Oldenburg assumed jurisdiction of this case on December 21, 2015. The December 7, 2016 jury trial was declared a mistrial, and on December 8, 2016, the court issued an order setting a jury trial along with other deadlines. Sharp has been represented by counsel, albeit several different attorneys, over the course of the proceeding. In early January 2018, an amended information and a motion to continue jury trial were filed. On January 16, 2018, the District Court issued an order continuing the jury trial.

         Sharp has not demonstrated reasons for any of his requested relief. To state a claim for mandamus, a party must show entitlement to the performance of a clear legal duty by the party against whom the writ is directed and the absence of a plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law. Section 27-26-102, MCA; Smith v. Missoula Co., 1999 MT 330, ¶ 28, 297 Mont. 368, 992 P.2d 834. While it is readily apparent that Sharp is not pleased with the manner of his adjudication and current incarceration, he presents no basis for his requested writ of mandate. Nor has Sharp adhered to the statutory requirements for a writ of mandate. Sections 27-26-201 and -203, MCA; M. R. App. P. 14(2). Sharp still possesses an adequate remedy at law with an appeal upon resolution of his criminal case. Section 27-26-102(2), MCA.

         Addressing Sharp's other claims: A defendant who has appointed counsel does not have the right to counsel of his choice. Section 47-1-111(1), MCA; State v. Dethman, 2010 MT 268, ¶ 15, 358 Mont. 384, 245 P.3d 30 (citation omitted). "An injunction is an order requiring a person to refrain from a particular act." Section 27-19-101, MCA. Sharp does not elaborate on his request for immediate injunctive relief here, aside from the dismissal or stay of his current criminal case. This is not an injunction's purpose. See §27-19-103(1), MCA.

         His claim of release to bail also fails. Pursuant to § 46-22-103, MCA, "when a person is imprisoned or detained in custody on any criminal charge for want of bail, the person is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus for the purpose of giving bail upon averring that fact in the person's petition . . .." Sharp does not state that he is in custody for want of bail. Sharp's petition is not clear about any of the reasons for his detention. He does not provide the background of his most recent charge, whether it is a bailable offense, or the terms of any bail that may or may not have been set. Sharp does not state whether he has discharged his 2010 prison sentence, which seems unlikely, because he is currently incarcerated at the Montana State Prison. Lastly, courts properly may refuse to accept pro se pleadings from defendants who are represented by counsel. State v. Samples, 2005 MT 210, ¶ 15, 328 Mont. 242, 119 P.3d 1191 (citations omitted). This Court cautions Sharp that while represented by counsel, only his counsel should file motions and papers with this Court on his behalf. Samples, ¶ 15.

         IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Sharp's "Petition for WRIT of Mandate, Habeas for writ of Bail, Release Order" is DENIED.

         The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to Hon. Jon A. Oldenburg, Tenth Judicial District Court; to Debra Munson, Clerk of Court, Toole County; to Chad G. Parker, Attorney General's Office; to Matthew McKittrick, Esq.; to Mark ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.