Background
Rex William Allen, Jr. pleaded guilty in 2017 to felony partner or family member assault and received a three-year prison sentence. In 2021, the District Court granted him postconviction relief and reduced the conviction to misdemeanor partner or family member assault.
Allen and his counsel did not appear at either of two scheduled resentencing hearings. The court sentenced Allen in absentia to 231 days in the Missoula County Detention Facility, with credit for 231 days served, and entered judgment on October 19, 2021. Allen did not appeal. On March 3, 2025, he filed another petition for postconviction relief, raising procedural challenges to the misdemeanor conviction and sentencing proceedings. The District Court denied the petition as time-barred.
The Court’s Holding
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed. Because Allen did not appeal the October 19, 2021 judgment within 60 days, the judgment became final on December 18, 2021. Montana law gave him one year from that date—until December 18, 2022—to seek postconviction relief. His March 2025 petition therefore was untimely.
The Court also held that Allen’s claims were procedurally barred because they relied entirely on the existing criminal record and reasonably could have been raised on direct appeal. The miscarriage-of-justice exception did not apply: Allen identified no reliable new evidence, as required for the procedural-innocence theory he appeared to assert. The petition thus was both time-barred and procedurally barred.
Key Takeaways
- A Montana postconviction petition generally must be filed within one year after the conviction becomes final.
- Claims based on the underlying record generally must be raised on direct appeal and cannot be reserved for postconviction proceedings.
- A procedural-innocence claim under the miscarriage-of-justice exception requires reliable new evidence; record-based procedural allegations alone are insufficient.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that Montana’s postconviction filing deadline and direct-appeal procedural bar operate independently: Allen’s claims failed under both. Petitioners seeking to overcome those bars through a miscarriage-of-justice theory must present qualifying new evidence, not merely identify alleged errors visible in the original record.
The Court issued the decision as a memorandum opinion under its Internal Operating Rules. It is noncitable and does not serve as precedent.