Eva has filed several documents with this Court: Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus, Supporting Memorandum of Law,
Supporting Brief, and "Motion to Dismiss and Exonerate
for the Unlawful Conviction(s) and Illegal Incarceration for
State's Failure to Comply with Legislative Intent of the
State Law Statutes." Eva seeks relief based on his
claims that his judgment and sentence are void and illegal.
He concludes, therefore, that his incarceration is unlawful.
Court will address his claims even though his filings are not
in compliance with M. R. App. P. 14. Eva has filed twenty-one
pages of typewritten pleadings. His filings exceed the
twelve-page or 4, 000-word maximum contained in M. R. App. P.
14(9). "No separate memorandum of law or brief shall be
filed with the application[.]" M. R. App. P.
Court is familiar with Eva's history. On May 26, 2004,
Eva entered pleas of guilty to two counts each of sexual
intercourse without consent and sexual assault. The Second
Judicial District Court, Butte-Silver Bow County, sentenced
Eva to the Montana State Prison (MSP) for concurrent terms of
thirty years with twenty years suspended. Eva did not appeal.
released to begin serving his suspended term. In December
2015, Eva's supervising officer filed a Report of
Violation alleging that Eva violated his terms and conditions
of his probation. The State filed a petition to revoke. Eva
appeared in the District Court and admitted to the
allegations. The District Court revoked his suspended
sentence and imposed four concurrent terms of twenty years to
MSP. Eva filed a petition for postconviction relief, pursuant
to Montana statutes, in 2016, and the District Court denied
his petition. This Court affirmed the court's denial in
an unpublished Opinion. Eva v. State, 2018 MT UN,
¶¶ 2, 15, 2018 Mont. LEXIS 10.
instant petition, Eva argues that his conviction and sentence
are illegal because of his interpretations of federal law,
Montana and United States Constitutions, and state law. He
states that "[t]he Judge in the accusatory stage in this
matter was the same Judge who pronounced sentence upon the
Petitioner[.]" He contends that his judgment is
"VOID" because the District Court never had subject
matter jurisdiction and that his due process rights have been
cannot find relief here with his instant petition. He is
procedurally constrained pursuant to Montana statutes.
Section 46-22-101(2), MCA, reads that "[t]he relief
under this chapter is not available to attack the legality of
an order revoking a suspended or deferred sentence." Eva
cannot challenge his 2016 sentence upon revocation with this
his claims have no merit. His references to federal law
concerning grand juries do not apply to states. "'
[T]he Fifth Amendment's grand jury requirement has not
been construed to apply to the states.'" State
v. Montgomery, 2015 MT 151, ¶ 9, 379 Mont. 353, 350
P.3d 77 (quoting U.S. v. Allen, 406 F.3d 940, 942
(8th Cir. 2005)). In Montgomery, this Court held
that "Montana statutes offer four methods to commence a
prosecution in this state, one of which is indictment by a
grand jury. Sections 46-11-10 l(1)-(4), MCA."
Montgomery, ¶ 11. '" [A] defendant is
not entitled to any specific procedure.'"
Montgomery, ¶ 11 (citing State v.
Haller, 2013 MT 199, ¶ 8, 371 Mont. 86, 306 P.3d
338) (internal citation omitted). If the State commences
prosecution by filing an application and an affidavit that
identifies supporting evidence demonstrating probable cause,
the district court has subject matter jurisdiction to proceed
"as stated in Mont. Const, art. VII, § 4(1) and
§ 3-5-302(1)(a), MCA[.]" Montgomery,
electronic records indicate that the State of Montana
commenced Eva's felony prosecution according to
Montana's Constitution and under its applicable statutory
scheme by filing an application which includes an information
for leave of court and an affidavit supported by evidence.
Section 46-11-201(2), MCA (2001). See also
Montgomery, ¶¶ 9-11; Mont. Const, art. II,
§ 20(1); §§ 46-11-101(3), 46-11-102(1), and
46-10-105(2), MCA. The District Court had subject matter
jurisdiction, and Eva's judgment is not void. Eva cannot
demonstrate that he is serving a facially invalid sentence.
Lott v. State, 2006 MT 279, ¶ 22, Mont. 150
P.3d 337. In light of the foregoing, we decline to address
his motion. M. R. App. P. 14(5). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
that Eva's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED
FURTHER ORDERED that Eva's Motion to Dismiss and
Exonerate for the Unlawful Conviction(s) and Illegal
Incarceration for State's Failure to Comply With
Legislative Intent of the State Law Statutes is DENIED, as
Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel
of record and to Raymond Eva personally.
Eva v. State, No. OP 06-0416,
Order denying motion to vacate sentence and for release from
custody (Mont. Jul. 5, 2006); Eva v. State, No. OP
07-0210, Order denying writ of habeas corpus (Mont. Apr. 4,
2007); Eva v. State, No. DA 17-0187, 2018 MT 11N,
2018 Mont. LEXIS 10 (Jan. 16, 2018); Eva v.
O'Fallon, No. OP 17-0418, Order denying writ of
habeas corpus (Mont. Aug. 1, 2017); and Eva v.