Background
A jury convicted Katie Irene Garding in 2011 of vehicular homicide while under the influence, failure to stop immediately at an accident scene involving an injured person, and driving without a valid license. She received an aggregate 40-year prison sentence. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed her convictions on direct appeal and later affirmed the denial of postconviction relief.
A federal district court subsequently granted Garding conditional habeas relief on an ineffective-assistance claim, directing the State either to renew proceedings against her or release her unconditionally and forgo retrial. The state District Court vacated the judgment, reinstated the charging information, and renewed the criminal proceedings, after which Garding moved to substitute the presiding judge. The Ninth Circuit later reversed the habeas grant and upheld the denial of Garding’s other claims. The state District Court then reinstated her convictions without separately ruling on the substitution motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed. It held that reversal of the conditional federal habeas writ undid the basis for the renewed state prosecution and made resumption of Garding’s custody lawful. Once the Ninth Circuit determined that Garding was not entitled to habeas relief or a new trial, no new criminal proceeding remained in which Montana’s judicial-substitution statute could operate.
The Court acknowledged that the better procedure would have been for the District Court to address the pending substitution motion before ruling on reinstatement. Under the unusual procedural circumstances, however, the omission did not require vacatur because the motion could no longer provide the relief Garding sought. The Court remanded for the District Court to reinstate the convictions consistently with its opinion.
The Court also stated that Garding remained free to file another postconviction petition based on allegedly new evidence, including the State’s asserted abandonment of its original accident theory. It directed that counsel be appointed if Garding files such a petition without counsel of her choosing. Two justices dissented from the substitution ruling; one also concluded that Garding had established substantive innocence.
Key Takeaways
- Reversal of a conditional federal habeas writ removed the basis for the renewed prosecution and permitted reinstatement of the original state convictions and custody.
- Garding had no right to substitute the trial judge because, after the habeas reversal, there was no new criminal action or retrial triggering Montana’s substitution statute.
- The failure to enter a separate order denying the substitution motion did not invalidate reinstatement in this unusual posture, although the Court did not endorse bypassing the substitution statute.
- The ruling does not foreclose a new postconviction petition based on allegedly reliable new evidence of innocence.
Why It Matters
The decision addresses the state-law consequences of an appellate reversal of conditional federal habeas relief. It treats actions taken solely to comply with the conditional writ as losing their operative basis once the writ is reversed, allowing the State to resume custody under the original convictions.
The sharply divided court also highlighted unresolved questions about judicial substitution and newly presented innocence evidence. Although the majority affirmed reinstatement, it expressly preserved Garding’s ability to pursue another collateral challenge with appointed counsel if necessary.