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.

State v. Parke

Supreme Court of Montana

March 12, 2019

STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
CHARLES BERNARD PARKE, Defendant and Appellant. CHARLES BERNARD PARKE, Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF MONTANA, Respondent. Doc. Seq. Filed Text Doc. Seq. Filed Text

         AND WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

          ORDER

         Representing himself, Charles Bernard Parke filed his notice of appeal on September 10, 2018, indicating that the Butte-Silver Bow County District Court entered a final judgment on June 27, 2018, concerning his three older criminal cases. Parke seeks to appeal an Order denying his motion to set aside or vacate his sentences. Parke has since filed a one-page motion with this Court, titled, "Addendum Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Sentences" and references his three underlying criminal matters. This Court directed Parke to file an opening brief and did not address this pending motion. On February 19, 2019, Parke filed a letter stating that his Addendum was his opening brief. Upon review, this Court deems it appropriate to address Parke's claims in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

         We have received and reviewed the District Court's electronic copies of Parke's underlying matters. In August 2003, Parke pleaded guilty to two counts of felony criminal possession of dangerous drugs with intent to distribute in the Second Judicial District Court, Butte-Silver Bow County, State of Montana. On September 18, 2003, the District Court sentenced Parke to two concurrent, ten-year prison terms with five years suspended (hereinafter 2003 sentences).[1]

         On July 29, 2008, the State of Montana filed an affidavit in support of a petition to revoke Parke's suspended sentence. The State filed the petition to revoke on August 14, 2008, and on the same day, the court issued an Order setting a hearing date. On September 11, 2008, the court held an initial hearing on the petition to revoke both 2003 sentences. From the transcript of this hearing (attached to docket item # 45, Cause No. DC-03-127), Parke appeared with counsel and denied the violations of his probationary conditions. During this hearing, the court learned that Parke had been arrested on July 24, 2008, and that on August 21, 2008, Parke's mother posted the bond of $25, 000 and Parke was released from jail. Accordingly, the court continued the $25, 000 bond with conditions. Importantly, the District Court also quashed "the bench warrant that is established in this case." Parke has since discharged his 2003 Montana sentences.

         This Court has deduced Parke's reason why he has sought various forms of postconviction relief in the District Court and appellate review in this Court. His case registers for both 2003 sentences do not reflect what occurred in 2008 for Parke's bench warrants. While these errors in a docket sheet may appear trivial, they are not trivial when considered by federal prison officials in determining federal custody after review of prior state criminal proceedings.

         The record is clear from the filings in both 2003 criminal cases. While the court's minute entry does not state that the bench warrant was quashed, a bench warrant, dated September 17, 2008, was issued and then stamped "RECALLED". Subsequently, the District Court issued a new bench warrant for Parke's arrest in both cases on October 27, 2008, which was filed on November 3, 2008. The corresponding case registers do not reflect those filings. The erroneous text entries for the time frames are listed as follows:

Cause No. DC 03-73 Cause No. DC 03-127

Doc. Seq.

Filed

Text

Doc. Seq.

Filed

Text

39

09/11/2008

Minute Entry

29

09/11/2008

Minute Entry

40

10/27/2008

Bench Warrant Recalled

30

10/27/2008

Bench Warrant Recalled

41

11/03/2008

Bench Warrant served

31

11/03/2008

Bench Warrant served 10/31/2008 returned

         The case registers should have shown that the court's initial bench warrant was quashed on September 11, 2008, and that a subsequent September 2008 bench warrant was recalled. The court issued another bench warrant on October 27, 2008, which was filed by the clerk on November 3, 2008. The entry indicating the bench warrant was recalled on October 27, 2018, is in error.

         Parke contends that the inaccurate entries "are being relied on by the United States probation officer, and Federal Bureau of Prisons, to increase [Parke's] custody points for having a pending warrant during the commission of the Federal Offense." He has tried to obtain relief concerning this error over the last decade. Most recently, Parke filed a "Motion to Correct Clerical Errors" in the District Court, which was lodged on September 26, 2016, and filed on October 14, 2016. Parke moved for relief by requesting correction of items # 29 and #30 in the case register for DC-03-127.[2] Parke included a copy of the transcript for the September 11, 2008 initial hearing on the petition to revoke. Parke further requested that the District Court order the Clerk or Court Registrar "to correct the erroneous or inaccurate Case Register Report text entries, to reflect: (1) On September 11, 2008,' [Warrants] Recalled' and (2) On October 17, 2008, '[Warrants] Issued' to conform with the orders and actions of the [c]ourt."

         The District Court issued an Order denying his motion to correct clerical errors on January 20, 2017. This Court subsequently denied Parke's petition for out-of-time appeal of this District Court's Order because he had discharged his Montana sentences. It is apparent that neither court recognized the true import of Parke's request for a corrected case register.

         This Court refers to a case from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, not for the legal authority, but for the background and comparable remedy which Parke seeks. Walker was a petitioner in the custody of California Department of Corrections who had prior convictions of attempted murder and aggravated battery in Illinois. Walker v. O 'Leary, Nos. 87 C 3313, 87 C 3706, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8924, at * l-*2 (N.D. 111. Sep. 30, 1987). He sought dismissal of an outstanding charge of escape and to quash this warrant for escape in Illinois because the reference in his prison file affected his points. The federal district court upon review determined that the state warrant was mistaken. "This court, however, cannot do anything substantive at this time to change the situation. Due to this new factual backdrop, Walker must now seek administrative and state court remedies to reverse the mistake that has occurred on the grounds that the warrant was misread by the [California Department of Corrections] and/or was improperly issued by the [Idaho Department of Corrections], before he can seek federal habeas corpus relief." Walker, at *9. His remedy was in the state, not federal, court.

         As evidenced by Parke's requests and demonstrated in Walker, the remedy to correct errors concerning warrants issued in a State is with that State. Parke's remedy is within this Court but not as a direct appeal Parke is entitled to habeas corpus relief because this writ may correct such injustice which affects an individual's incarceration or custody within a penal system "The writ of habeas corpus is designed to correct such flaws and to remedy 'extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems'" Lott v. State, 2006 MT 279, ¶ 20, 334 Mont 270, 150 P.3d 337 (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 332, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2796 n5 (1979) (Stevens, J, concurring)).

         Since 2010, Parke has sought some relief from the error concerning his bench warrants. He most recently sought to vacate the sentences so his record could be expunged. However, what he desires after these years is a correction to the corresponding case register reports. The District Court's records on file here allow this Court to ...


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.