Opinion
OP 22-0602
11-15-2022
ERNEST B. WILCOCK, Petitioner, v. MONTANA ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, HON. AMY EDDY, Presiding. Respondents.
ORDER
Ernest B. Wilcock has filed a pleading captioned "Production of Documents" that the Office of the Clerk of Supreme Court has deemed a petition for a writ of supervisory control. M. R. App. P. 14(3). The document contains a certificate of service indicating both the Attorney General and the Eleventh Judicial District Court have been served.
Wilcock requests production of documents-copies of the State's Plea Agreement and of the transcript of the court's colloquy. He references a criminal cause number, dating back to 1997. Wilcock provides that he has tried to secure copies of these documents on his own behalf, but to no avail. He requests that this Court exercise its original jurisdiction by ordering the District Court "to release and send copies ...."
Supervisory control may be appropriate on a case-by-case basis. "This extraordinary remedy can be invoked when the case involves purely legal questions and urgent or emergency factors make the normal appeal process inadequate." State v. Spady, 2015 MT 218, ¶ 11, 380 Mont. 179, 354 P.3d 590 (citing M. R. App. P. 14(3); Redding v. McCarter, 2012 MT 144, ¶ 17, 365 Mont. 316, 281 P.3d 189). One of three additional criteria must be met. Spady, ¶ 11; M. R. App. P. 14(3)(a)-(c).
Supervisory control is not appropriate here. Wilcock has not presented purely legal questions; he has not cited any of the criteria under M. R. App. P. 14(3)(a)-(c), and the normal appeal process does not exist here. Wilcock exhausted his appeal remedy after some twenty-four years since his 1998 conviction. .
This Court is familiar with the background of Wilcock's case. Wilcock did not appeal his conviction and sentence. Since 2009, Wilcock has, however, filed several petitions with this Court and an appeal of the court's denial of his petition for postconviction relief. See Wilcock v. Eleventh Judicial Court, No. OP 10-0343, Order denying writ of supervisory control (Mont. Aug. 3, 2010) (Wilcock I)-, Wilcock v. Eleventh Judicial Dist. Ct., No. OP 10-0564, Order denying writ of supervisory control (Mont. Dec. 21, 2010) (Wilcock II); Wilcock v. State, No. DA 10-0588, Unpublished Opinion affirming District Court's denial of postconviction relief (Mont. Jun. 8,2011) (Wilcock III); Wilcock v. State, No. OP 11-0442, Order denying writ of habeas corpus (Mont. Sept. 13, 2011) (Wilcock IV); Wilcock v. Saltnonsen, No. OP 18-0600, Order denying petition for habeas corpus relief, as time and procedurally barred (Mont. Oct. 30, 2018) (Wilcock V).
In 2018, in Wilcock V, we cautioned Wilcock that "[i]f Wilcock continues to file pleadings concerning his 1998 conviction and sentence, it will be necessary to impose a filing restriction that will prohibit pleadings from Wilcock without a showing of good cause." Wilcock V, at 4. Last year, Wilcock petitioned this Court for an out-of-time appeal of the District Court's denial of a petition for habeas corpus relief. At that time, Wilcock presented a copy of the plea agreement and a final judgment. We denied his petition as his appeal was improper because a petitioner cannot appeal a denial of a writ of habeas corpus. Wilcock v. State, No. DA 21-0110, Order (Mont. Mar. 23,2021) (Wilcock VI). Referencing Wilcock V, this Court again cautioned Wilcock to refrain from seeking relief with this Court. "As we explained therein, Wilcock is both time-barred and procedurally barred from challenging the validity of his conviction, including his plea agreement. We cautioned Wilcock not to file pleadings concerning his 1998 conviction and sentence." Wilcock VI, at 2.
Turning to his instant petition, there is no matter in the District Court over which to take supervisory control. His proceedings concluded there in 1998. This extraordinary remedy does not lie here. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED Wilcock's Production of Documents, deemed a Petition for Writ
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that henceforth, prior to filing any direct appeal or original proceeding with this Court. Ernest B. Wilcock is directed to fde a motion for leave to file the pleading. The motion must be sworn under oath before a notary public, not exceed three pages in length, and make a preliminary showing that the motion has merit and meets the criteria either of a proper appeal under M. R. App. P. 4(5) or of a prima facie case under M. R. App. P. 14(5). Only when this Court has reviewed the motion and issued an order granting leave to file may the Clerk of this Court file either the Notice of Appeal or a Petition. Any other original pleading that Ernest Wilcock seeks to file shall be rejected forthwith, and the Clerk shall inform Ernest Wilcock accordingly.
The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to the Honorable Amy Eddy, District Court Judge; to Peg Allison. Clerk of District Court, Flathead County, under Cause No. DC-97-228A; to counsel record; and to Ernest B. Wilcock personally.