Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 46-21-101 (2026)

When Validity Of Sentence May Be Challenged

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

TITLE 46. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 21. POSTCONVICTION HEARING

Part 1. Initiating Proceedings

When Validity Of Sentence May Be Challenged

46-21-101. When validity of sentence may be challenged. (1) A person adjudged guilty of an offense in a court of record who has no adequate remedy of appeal and who claims that a sentence was imposed in violation of the constitution or the laws of this state or the constitution of the United States, that the court was without jurisdiction to impose the sentence, that a suspended or deferred sentence was improperly revoked, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law or is otherwise subject to collateral attack upon any ground of alleged error available under a writ of habeas corpus, writ of coram nobis, or other common law or statutory remedy may petition the court that imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence or revocation order.

(2) If the sentence was imposed by a justice's, municipal, or city court, the petition may not be filed unless the petitioner has exhausted all appeal remedies provided by law. The petition must be filed with the district court in the county where the lower court is located.

History: En. 95-2601 by Sec. 1, Ch. 196, L. 1967; amd. Sec. 43, Ch. 184, L. 1977; R.C.M. 1947, 95-2601; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 195, L. 1981; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 211, L. 1985; amd. Sec. 225, Ch. 800, L. 1991; amd. Sec. 3, Ch. 378, L. 1997.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 152 cases (32 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: State v. Boucher, 2002 MT 114 (Mont. 2002).
State v. Boucher, 2002 MT 114 (Mont. 2002). · cites it 28× “¶ 20 The absence of an appellate remedy and the constitutional claims asserted establish Boucher's eligibility to pursue postconviction relief in accordance with § 46-21-101, MCA. In view of this right and consistent with our holdings in Christensen and Liefert , we deem…”
State v. Christensen, 877 P.2d 468 (Mont. 1994). · cites it 34× “These allegations were refuted in affidavits from Larry O'Toole, Christensen's court-appointed attorney, and Tom Robertson, the City Court Judge who presided at Christensen's trial. However, the District Court did not resolve the factual issue raised by the contradictory…”
State v. Maine, 2011 MT 90 (Mont. 2011). · cites it 10× “A statutory scheme governing collateral attacks that provides limits similar to those imposed by the postconviction statutes would better advance the administration of justice than would this Court's attempt to pick and choose between constitutional rights of equal stature.”
State v. Barrack, 882 P.2d 1028 (Mont. 1994). · cites it 22× “2d 1, 4 , in discussing § 46-21-101, MCA, the post-conviction relief statute, we stated that: "The first element of the test which a petitioner must satisfy is that petitioner be "adjudged guilty of an offense in a court of record who has no adequate remedy of appeal .”
Coleman v. State, 633 P.2d 624 (Mont. 1981). · cites it 13× “See also section 46-21-101, MCA ("may petition the court which imposed the sentence .”
Walker v. State, 2003 MT 134 (Mont. 2003). · cites it 8× “Counsel argued that Walker did not meet any of the contingencies in § 46-21-101, MCA, the postconviction relief statute; that the District Court could not grant Walker the relief he requested in a petition for postconviction relief; and that the only appropriate proceeding for…”
State v. Whitehorn, 2002 MT 54 (Mont. 2002). · cites it 8× “" See § 46-21-101, MCA. In this case, Whitehorn had an adequate remedy of appeal of his sentence following his sentencing in 1995.”
Petition of Hans, 1998 MT 7 (Mont. 1998). · cites it 14× “¶14 Under § 46-21-101, MCA, a person “who has no adequate remedy of appeal and who claims that a sentence was imposed in violation of the constitution or laws of this state or the constitution of the United States” may petition for post-conviction relief.”
Jordan v. State, 2007 MT 165 (Mont. 2007). · cites it 14× “Section 46-21-101(1), MCA, provides that a petition for post conviction relief must be filed in “the court that imposed the sentence.”
Ranta v. State, 1998 MT 95 (Mont. 1998). · cites it 10× “JURISDICTION ¶11 Ranta has challenged the decisions of the Sentence Review Division on constitutional grounds by filing a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to § 46-21-101, MCA.”
Patrick v. State, 2011 MT 169 (Mont. 2011). · cites it 11× “In short, when Judge Watters recused herself from the postconviction proceedings, § 46-21-101, MCA, ceased to conflict with § 3-1-804, MCA, and no longer took precedence over the long-held right in Montana to a judicial substitution.”
State v. Finley, 915 P.2d 208 (Mont. 1996). · cites it 4× “See § 46-21-101, MCA. Moreover, § 46-21-201(2), MCA, was enacted in 1991, and therefore did not apply to the post-trial hearing held in April of 1990.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-21-101(1) — 44 cases
State v. Barrack, 882 P.2d 1028 (Mont. 1994). “2d 1, 4 , in discussing § 46-21-101, MCA, the post-conviction relief statute, we stated that: "The first element of the test which a petitioner must satisfy is that petitioner be "adjudged guilty of an offense in a court of record who has no adequate remedy of appeal .”
Jordan v. State, 2007 MT 165 (Mont. 2007). “Section 46-21-101(1), MCA, provides that a petition for post conviction relief must be filed in “the court that imposed the sentence.”
State v. Christensen, 877 P.2d 468 (Mont. 1994). “These allegations were refuted in affidavits from Larry O'Toole, Christensen's court-appointed attorney, and Tom Robertson, the City Court Judge who presided at Christensen's trial. However, the District Court did not resolve the factual issue raised by the contradictory…”
Patrick v. State, 2011 MT 169 (Mont. 2011). “In short, when Judge Watters recused herself from the postconviction proceedings, § 46-21-101, MCA, ceased to conflict with § 3-1-804, MCA, and no longer took precedence over the long-held right in Montana to a judicial substitution.”
State v. Osborne, 2005 MT 264 (Mont. 2005).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-21-101(1)(a) — 1 case
H. Grimes v. Cpt. Hash (Mont. 2023).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-21-101(2) — 11 cases
State v. Christensen, 877 P.2d 468 (Mont. 1994). “These allegations were refuted in affidavits from Larry O'Toole, Christensen's court-appointed attorney, and Tom Robertson, the City Court Judge who presided at Christensen's trial. However, the District Court did not resolve the factual issue raised by the contradictory…”
State v. Boucher, 2002 MT 114 (Mont. 2002). “¶ 20 The absence of an appellate remedy and the constitutional claims asserted establish Boucher's eligibility to pursue postconviction relief in accordance with § 46-21-101, MCA. In view of this right and consistent with our holdings in Christensen and Liefert , we deem…”
State v. Ellison, 2012 MT 50 (Mont. 2012).
State v. Cady, 2000 MT 353 (Mont. 2000).
Sullivan v. State, 2021 MT 258N (Mont. 2021).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.