Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Smith v. Reich

Supreme Court of Montana

Aug 18, 2026

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

e'^l ^ R^tm

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

OP 26-0548

is itaa IjMB Vv^

AUG 1 8 202rALEX CHRISTOPHER SMITH, iowen Greenwood

r;K of Supreme Court

'^tete of Montano Petitioner,

ORDER

BILLIE REICH, Warden, Crossroads Correctional Center,

Respondent.

Self-represented Petitioner Alex Christopher Smith ^hasfiled^aPetition^for^Writ^of Habeas Corpus, alleging various claims about a 2022 sentence imposed in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County. Smith raises

claims^ofineffective assistance^of counsel and evidentiary issues in the underlying criminal

case. Smith states "[b]ut^for counsel's deficiencies, [and] spoilation [sic] of evidence, ^such^asmedical records,"^the proceeding's results would have been different. He questions the District Court's process for his pending petition for postconviction relief

Smith wants^to^know^what^thestandard threshold is for a reversal of his sentence and conviction

on appeal. On June 24, 2022, the District Court held a sentencing hearing for two felony convictions of assault with a weapon (reasonable apprehension)

after Smith entered^nolo contendere or no contest pleas. The District Court

sentenced Smith^to^theMontana State Prison for two, consecutive twenty-year terms. The

District Court dismissed^thethree other charges, including attempted deliberate homicide and criminal endangerment. Smith did not appeal.

Instead, he sought extraordinary relief in 2022. See

Smith^v.Salmonsen,^No.^OP 22-0468, Order (Mont. Sept. 20, 2022) {Smith I). We

stated then:

Smith is not entitled to habeas corpus relief demonstrated illegal incarceration or illegal restraint.

Section 46-22-101(1), Smith has not

08/18/2026

Case Number: OP 26-0548

MCA; Miller v. Eleventh Judicial District Ct., 2007

MT 58, T[ 14, 336 Mont. 207, 154 P.3d 1186. Any challenge about counsel, or ^the^lackthereof, would have been more appropriate in an appeal. Section 46-20-104(1), ^MCA.^His claim lacks merit. This Court has previously explained ^that^"'adefendant waives the right to appeal all nonjurisdictional defects

upon voluntarily and knowingly entering a guilty plea, including claims ^ofconstitutional violations which may have occurred prior to the plea.'" State v. Pavey, 2010 MT 104, K 11, 356 Mont. 248, 231 P.3d 1104. Smith is precluded from raising this issue in a petition for habeas corpus relief when it is the wrong remedy for his late claim. Section 46-22-101 (2), MCA.

Smith^is^notentitled to habeas corpus relief. Smith /, at 1-2. Smith never sought a petition for an out-of-time appeal either. On November 16, 2022, the Sentence Review Division

of the Montana Supreme Court held a hearing on Smith's application for review. ^TheSentence Review Division found that the District Court's sentence was clearly excessive, reducing the sentence to a twenty-year prison sentence with ten years suspended, followed by a consecutive, ten-year suspended sentence.

Smith returned to this Court in December 2022. We denied

his petition for habeas corpus relief, explaining that the extraordinary writ was the wrong remedy. Smith v. Salmonsen, No. OP 22-0694, Order (Mont. Dec. 27, 2022) {Smith 11). Smith argued that his incarceration was illegal due mostly to his counsel's failures. We explained:

Habeas corpus affords an applicant an opportunity to challenge collaterally the legality of his present incarceration.

Section 46-22-101(1), MCA. Smith's claims are not appropriate for this writ.

Smith could raise any claims concerning his counsel or ineffective assistance ^ofcounselⁱⁿ a petition for postconviction relief, filed in the

District Court. Section 46-21-101, MCA. His other claims are not remedied by habeas corpus because habeas corpus does not address conditions of

confinement, including law library access or medical care. Gates v. Missoula County Comm'rs,

235 Mont. 261, 262, 766 P.2d 884, 884-85 (1988). Smith ^is^notentitled^to appointment of counsel in this postconviction proceeding.

Section 46-8-104,

MCA.

Smith II, at 2. In 2023, Smith filed two more writs. We denied his petition for a writ of supervisory control over the Cascade County District Court because his underlying criminal case

concluded in June 2022 and there was no matter pending ⁱⁿ^theDistrict Court. Smith^v. Eighth Judicial District Ct., No. OP 23-0241, Order (Mont. May 9, 2023) {Smith 111). We pointed out that while Smith filed a motion to proceed without paying the filing fee, he had not yet filed a petition for postconviction relief ⁱⁿ^theDistrict Court. About^amonth later, we denied his petition for habeas corpus relief where ^hewanted "this Court^to'[rjeverse charges or assign counsel so [he] can properly challenge

charges.'" Smith^v.Bludworth, No. OP 23-0282, Order, at 1 (Mont. Jul. 13, 2023) {Smith IV). We explained that a "writ of habeas corpus is not the vehicle to bypass a pending proceeding for postconviction relief" Smith IV, at 2.

In 2024, Smith again sought extraordinary relief We denied his petition for habeas corpus relief where he put forth due process violations while his petition for postconviction relief was pending in the District Court. Smith v.

Bludworth,^No.^OP24-0008, Order (Mont. Jan. 16, 2024) {Smith V). Smith has sought relief through the wrong remedy here. ^A^writ^of habeas corpus is not the remedy for constitutional

claims^or^tointerfere^with a district court proceeding. Section 46-22-101(1), ^MCA;Gates^v.Missoula County Comm'rs, 235 Mont. 261, 261-62, 766 P.2d 884,

884-85 (1988). Smith's claims do not go to the cause of his incarceration.

Gates,²³⁵Mont, at 262, 766 P.2d at 885. Even if this Court were to ^deem^his^writ^as^one^for supervisory control over the District Court, his pleading

fails. Smith provides no dates about when he sought relief in the

District Court^and^any delay. This Court had to seek more information. The

District Court^has^been responsive in setting Smith's matter for a status hearing ^andscheduling conference. We point out that any of Smith's filings ^notserved^toopposing counsel are considered ex parte communication to which ^thecourt^may^not respond. Smith has not demonstrated that the court is proceeding under a mistake of law causing a gross miscarriage of justice. M. R. App. P. 14(3). Smith F, at 2.

Smith then filed a Petition for Writ of Supervisory

Control^over^theDistrict Court concerning his pending civil case as well as a Motion ^'toVacate Charges^andDischarge Smith V. Eighth Judicial District Ct., No. OP 24-0281,

Order (Mont. May 21, 2024) {Smith VI). The State filed an unsolicited response to Smith's Petition, explaining that the District Court has not ruled on his pending petition for Petitioner on Reversal.

9 55

postconviction relief. Smith VI, at 2. We decided that ^wecould^notentertain Smith's Petition or his Motion. We instructed Smith to seek

an appeal when the District Court issued a final decision. Smith VI, at 2-3. Last year, this Court ordered a summary response from ^theDistrict Court^with Smith's deemed Petition for Writ of Supervisory Control

because Smith petitioned^the court in 2023 for postconviction relief and "the underlying matter may have been inadvertently overlooked." Smith v. Eighth Judicial

District^Ct,^No.^OP25-0093, Order, at 2 (Mont. Feb. 14, 2025). The District Court provided ^that^it^set^ahearing^for^June^17, 2025, for the matter and that Smith would be transported for his personal appearance. We denied Smith's writ. Smith v. Eighth Judicial District ^Ct,^No.^OP25-0093, Order (Mont. Mar. 25, 2025) {Smith VII).

On November 25, 2025, this Court denied Smith's Petition ^for^Writ^ofHabeas Corpus because he could not demonstrate illegal incarceration.

Smith^v.Salmonsen, No. OP 25-0735, Order (Mont. Nov. 25, 2025) {Smith VIII). We stated that Smith has the remedy of appealing "the District Court's decision ^when^hereceives^thefinal, written judgment of his petition for postconviction relief.

Section 46-21-203, MCA." Smith VIII, at 2.

We secured copies of the register of actions and documents for his postconviction case. Smith's matter has not concluded in the District Court. The court held a status hearing on July 2, 2026, and ordered briefing, as set out in a July 6, 2026 Order for Final Summary Briefing Schedule. Smith's unrequired reply

brief^is^due^onAugust^31,2026. Smith never appealed his convictions and sentence.

Smith^I,Smith^II,Smith^III,^and Smith IV. Smith cannot change that fact with his repeated

filingsⁱⁿ^thisCourt.^Hisclaims have no merit for consideration through this remedy of habeas corpus. Smith I, Smith II, Smith IV, Smith V, and Smith VIII. Smith has a pending

matterⁱⁿ^theDistrict Court^and the remedy of appealing that final decision, when issued.

Smith^VI,Smith^VII,^andSmith

VIII. This Court will make it abundantly clear here: Smith

should not-return^to^thisCourt until Smith has received a written, final order in

his postconviction case. This Court

cautions Smith to refrain from filing original proceedings ^for^hiscriminal^case^and^hiscivil postconviction case. If he persists in filing a petition for a writ, this Court will require a motion for leave to file. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Smith's Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus is DENIED and

DISMISSED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is CLOSED as of this Order's date. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order ^to:counsel^ofrecord;^theHonorable John W. Parker, District Court Judge; Tina Henry, Clerk ^ofCourt, under Cause^No. DV-23-034; Kory V. Larsen, Deputy County Attorney, and Alex Smith along with a copy of the court's July 6, 2026 Order.

DATED this \ \ day of August, 2026. Chief Justice

jL^

Justices