STATE OF MONTANA v. DOUGLAS PASQUINZO (2025)

¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this Court's quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports.

¶2 Douglas P. Pasquinzo appeals from an order entered in the Fifth Judicial District Court, Jefferson County, denying several motions he filed seeking relief from his conviction. We affirm.

¶3 Pasquinzo pleaded no contest to two counts of sexual assault in 2016. He was sentenced to two consecutive terms of 15 years with 5 years suspended to the Montana State Prison. Pasquinzo did not appeal. He filed a petition for post-conviction relief which the court denied on August 22, 2018. This Court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief on October 15, 2019. Pasquinzo v. State, No. DA 18-0687, 2019 MT 246N, 2019 Mont. LEXIS 602.

¶4 In August and September 2024, Pasquinzo filed in District Court a summary judgment motion alleging lack of subject matter jurisdiction, a motion to dismiss his Judgment and Information, a request for information pursuant to F. R. Civ. P. 36 and M. R. Civ. P. 36, as well as a M. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) motion for relief from judgment. Following a response from the State, the District Court denied Pasquinzo's motion because civil motions have no application in a criminal proceeding. The court also cautioned Pasquinzo about filing frivolous motions and placed him on notice that any future filings may cause the court to classify Pasquinzo as a vexatious litigant.

¶5 Section 46-1-103(1), MCA, provides that Title 46 “governs the practice and procedure in all criminal proceedings in the courts of Montana except where provision for a different procedure is specifically provided by law.” The rules of criminal procedure, not the rules of civil procedure, apply in criminal proceedings. Additionally, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are not applicable in state courts.

¶6 Pasquinzo's motions were not properly before the District Court and his appeal is not properly before this Court. Accordingly, the District Court correctly denied his motions.

¶7 Affirmed.

¶8 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion of the Court, the case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear application of applicable standards of review.

LAURIE McKINNON

We Concur: JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA KATHERINE M BIDEGARAY BETH BAKER INGRID GUSTAFSON