Background
A jury convicted Katie Irene Garding in 2011 of vehicular homicide while under the influence, failing to stop at an accident scene involving an injured person, and driving without a valid license. She received a total prison sentence of 40 years. After her convictions and denial of state postconviction relief were affirmed, Garding sought federal habeas relief.
A federal district court granted relief on Garding’s ineffective-assistance claim and directed the State either to move to vacate the judgment and renew proceedings or to release her unconditionally. The state District Court vacated the judgment and renewed the prosecution, after which Garding sought substitution of the presiding judge. The Ninth Circuit later reversed the habeas grant, and the District Court reinstated Garding’s convictions and directed the Department of Corrections to resume custody over her without separately resolving the substitution motion or allowing Garding to respond to the State’s reinstatement motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Montana Supreme Court held that Garding had no right to judicial substitution after the Ninth Circuit reversed the federal habeas grant. The reversal eliminated the conditional writ and the basis for a renewed prosecution or retrial. Because no new criminal proceeding remained pending, the statutory events triggering substitution never occurred. Although the District Court should have addressed the pending substitution motion before acting, its failure to enter a separate denial did not require vacating the reinstatement order under the case’s unusual procedural circumstances.
The Court further held that reversal of the habeas relief made resumption of Garding’s custody lawful and permitted reinstatement of her convictions. But the State’s motion to reinstate was a pleading to which Garding had a due-process right to respond and be heard. The Court therefore affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings allowing Garding that opportunity.
Key Takeaways
- Reversal of the conditional federal habeas writ removed the basis for Garding’s renewed prosecution and allowed her convictions and custody to be reinstated.
- Garding had no statutory right to substitute the judge because, after the habeas reversal, no new criminal action or retrial remained pending.
- Due process entitled Garding to respond and be heard before the District Court ruled on the State’s motion to reinstate her convictions.
Why It Matters
The decision addresses the procedural consequences when a state court takes action to comply with conditional federal habeas relief and that relief is later reversed. It establishes that judge-substitution rights tied to a renewed prosecution do not survive when the federal decision creating that proceeding is overturned.
At the same time, reinstatement is not purely automatic at the state-court level: a defendant must receive an opportunity to oppose the State’s motion. The Court also noted that Garding remains free to pursue a new collateral petition based on allegedly newly discovered evidence, leaving the trial court to determine whether that evidence warrants another postconviction proceeding.