S. Weller v. J. Williams

Corrections (DOC) "only attempted [one] treatment" ^{andthathehasno}incentive^todo treatment or to stay sober. He concludes that the DOC and Board have illegally restrained him.

This Court has heard and denied many of Weller's claims previously. For the purposes of this Order, we categorize his claims as; illegal sentence, violation of the Board's authority, and illegal restraint. We have previously explained Weller's case history, as also summarized herein:

Weller was on parole for partner or family member assault when, on July 27, 2006, he was arrested for driving under the influence

(DUI)ⁱⁿLewis^and Clark County. After posting his bond, Weller absconded. ^Hischarge^was later amended to felony DUI. Weller was arrested in

Texas,^andon March 21, 2007, he was delivered to Montana State Prison

as a parole violator. His parole was revoked. In March 2008, a jury convicted Weller of felony DUI. The District Court designated Weller a persistent felony offender and sentenced him to a twenty-two[-]year commitment ^with seventeen years suspended. He appealed, solely on the issue of a Juiy instruction, and we affirmed. State v. Weller, [] 2009 ^MT168,

350 Mont. 485, 208 P.3d 834 (Weller 1). 1-2, 9,

Weller v. State of Montana and First Judicial Dist, ^No.OP15-0406, Order^at1-2(Mont; Jul. 22, 2015) (Weller 2).

Illegal sentence claim

Weller does not have an illegal sentence. Weller has ^alonger sentence^fora DUI because the court designated him a persistent felony offender and imposed a twenty-two-year sentence. Weller sought habeas corpus and other postconviction relief between 2009 and 2011.

After his appeal, Weller filed various writs with this

Court.^In2009, Weller filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, ⁱⁿwhich^healleged transcript inaccuracies and an altered transcript, ^and"that^hewasdenied^a complete record of his trial proceeding." See Weller v. Mahoney, No. OP 09-0415, Or. (Mont. Aug. 20, 2009) (Weller 2). We denied his petition. In 2010, Weller raised the issue of "falsified and altered [] trial court transcripts" in his second petition for habeas relief

Weller^v.Mahpney,^No. OP 10-0566, Or. (Mont. Feb. 20, 2011) (Weller 3). He ^alsoclaimed that, following his 2008 conviction, he should have been

readmitted^toMartz Diagnostic Intake Unit (MDIU), and that he was denied ^acustody

2

assignment, a referral to treatment programs, and a parole eligibility date. Following a response from the Department of Corrections

(DOC),^thisCourt denied his petition. Weller 2, at 2. In Weller 5, Weller argued about the lack of treatment options for him, and the DOC explained what occurred after his 2007 parole

revocation. In the present petition, Weller insists that the State ^andDistrict Court falsified and altered the trial court transcripts to

include evidence^thathadnot been admitted at trial. Weller also complains that

following trial,^hewas returned to the same cell he had occupied before trial ^andthatunder^MSP protocol, he should have been readmitted through the ^MDIUunit. Weller contends that among other things, this failure to adhere to protocol denied him a custody assessment, referral to treatment programs, ^andaparole eligibility date. He claims that he also was denied a parole appearance for six months. He contends he has been set up to fail upon release from prison, and blames MSP staff for refusing him treatment and a work assignment. Weller requests his immediate parole to complete treatment ^ina prerelease center. He then opines that prerelease does not constitute parole,

"because you can't do what you want. You don't even ^havetobreak^alaw to get thrown into jail and if you walk away thats [sic] escape. So it's still prison."

In the response, the DOC indicates that Weller has been provided a discretionary custody reduction that allowed him to participate in chemical dependency treatment. Weller's behavior in treatment presented a security risk, however, and disrupted the progress of other

inmates.^Thisbehavior caused DOC to return Weller to locked housing. Weller 5, at 2. In 2011, Weller sought supervisory

control^overthePowell County District Court because of the lack of treatment while in MSP.

He argued:

Weller asserts that his due process rights are being

violated^andheisbeing required to serve his entire five-year felony DUI sentence

while being denied treatment. Weller also alleges that the District Court is biased against him. Weller v. State and Third Judicial District Ct., No. OP 11-0337, Order, at 2 (Mont. Aug. 9, 2011) {Weller 4A). This Court denied his Petition. ^In2012,^thisCourt affirmed the Lewis and Clark County District Court's denial of his 2011 amended petition for postconviction relief because his claims were procedurally

barred. Weller^v.State,^No.DA 11-0587, 2012 MT 117N, 2012 Mont. LEXIS 161 (May 29, 2012) {Weller 4B).

3

In 2012, the Lewis and Clark County District Court revoked his suspended sentence, imposing a seventeen-year sentence after his parole ^wasrevoked.^SeeState^v.Weller,^No. DA 13-0143, Order, at 1 (Mont. Mar. 20, 2013) {Weller 5). Weller raised the same claim about lack of treatment.

While Weller insists that he has never had an opportunity ^to participate in intensive chemical dependency treatment, ^weremind Weller that we summarized the DOC's response in our February

2,2011 Order^inOP 10-0566, as follows: "Weller has been provided a discretionary

custody reduction that allowed him to participate in chemical

dependency treatment. Weller's behavior in treatment presented a security

risk, however,^and disrupted the progress of other inmates. This behavior

caused^DOCtoreturn Weller to locked housing." In prison, Weller accumulated 19 disciplinary infractions that included possession of a razor blade,

seven infractions^for rude and vulgar utterances to staff, two for flooding ^hiscell,^twoforbreaking sprinkler heads, one for causing a disturbance and ^oneforkicking^outa window. [Wellers'].

Weller 5, at 2-3. Weller has not demonstrated an illegal sentence. He admits to the length of his sentence, and he has had various treatment over

the years. At this point, his seventeen-year sentence restarted in 2012. Board^s authority claim

Weller challenges the authority and composition of ^theBoard.^ThisCourt^hasstated many times that the Board has inherent authority and

broad authority^toreach^itsdecisions. McDermott v. McDonald, 2001 MT 89,U 20, 305 Mont. 166,24 ^P.3d200.TheBoard^now has a long list of items to consider when determining non-medical parole release. Section 46-23-208, MCA. "In Montana, the Board is specifically required to 'consider all pertinent information regarding each prisoner, including the

circumstances^ofhisoffense,^his previous social history and criminal record, his conduct,

employment^andattitudeⁱⁿprison, and the reports of any physical and mental examinations

which^havebeenmade. McDermott, K 20 (citing § 46-23-202, MCA (1985), replaced ^by§46-23-208(4)(a)-(4)(r), MCA (2017)). This list now includes the prisoner's

attitude toward^lawandauthority^as well as the inmate's behavior and attitude during any previous experience of supervision. See §§ 46-23-208(4)(n) and -208(4)(p), MCA.

5 59

4

Weller alleges that the Board violated Admin. R. M. 601(2), which concerns the rescission of a parole hearing. He contends that he was not allowed to provide his own testimony about a write-up, which occurred in April of 2026, and that he orally told the Board that it was a lie. He adds that he always gets "the max punishment."

Rescission of parole occurs when an inmate is still in custody after being granted parole due to the panel finding a change in circumstance. The panel must find one of the following has occurred: (a) the offender has committed disciplinary violations; (b) there is a substantial change in the approved release plan; or (c) new evidence or information shows the offender does not deserve a release." Admin.

R. M. 20.25.601(l)(a)-(c) (2022). Some of the attachments to the petition support Weller's

claims^ofclear conduct since April 21, 2025, but also document that the Board rescinded parole after a June 1, 2026 hearing because of new evidence indicating a release was not appropriate, pursuant to Admin. R. M. 20.25.601(l)(c). The Board also referenced poor history in community placement.

Weller has challenged the Board's decisions previously ^withthisCourt.^See Weller 3. As stated, this Court has narrow authority over the Board, especially regarding petitions for habeas corpus relief based upon these

claims.^Weconclude^thatWeller^has not demonstrated any violations of statutes or administrative rules by the Board. Illegal restraint claim

Weller contends that the DOC and the Board have illegally

restrained^him. However, Weller has a valid sentence. The reasons for ^theBoard's decisions^arerelated to Weller's history, the facts of his current status, and the Board's statutory authority. See § 46-23-208, MCA He has not demonstrated illegal restraint. ^,

We conclude that Weller has not demonstrated any viable claim for habeas corpus relief. Section 46-22-101(1), MCA. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Weller's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED ^andDISMISSED;

2. Weller's "Notice to the Court and Motion for an

Order to Bring Me Back to Montana" is DISMISSED;

5

3. Henceforth, prior to filing any original petition with this Court regarding his 2008 conviction or the 2012 revocation of this suspended

sentence^inthatcase, Weller^is directed to file a motion for leave to file the petition. ^Themotion^mustbesworn under oath before a notary public, not exceed three pages in length, and make a preliminary showing that the motion has merit and meets ^thecriteria^tostate^aprima facie case under M. R. App. P. 14(5). Only when this

Court^hasreviewed^themotion and issued an order granting leave to file may the Clerk of Court file the petition. The Clerk shall reject any other original petition ^thatWeller seeks^tofileandshall inform Weller accordingly; and

4. This matter is CLOSED as of this Order's date. The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to provide ^acopyofthisOrder^to:

counsel of record and Shawn Howard Weller personally.

. 'O'

DATED this 1 3> day of October, 2026. Chief Justice

6