Incarceration of an individual pursuant to a facially invalid sentence—a sentence which, as a
matter of law—the court had no authority to impose unconstitutionally suspends the writ. Section 46-22-101(2), MCA. Incarceration pursuant to a facially invalid sentence represents a "grievous wrong" and a miscarriage of justice warranting habeas corpus relief. Lott v. State, 2006 MT 279, ¶ 22, 334 Mont. 270, 150 P.3d 337, citing Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 1721 (1993) and State v. Perry, 232 Mont. 455, 462, 758 P.2d 268, 273 (1988) (overruled on other grounds).
It is unquestionable that a person restrained by the terms of a suspended sentence beyond its lawful completion date is being unlawfully restrained of his or her liberty. Sebastian v. Mahoney, 2001 MT 88, ¶ 8, 305 MT 158, 25 P.3d 163.
When a petition does not challenge the legal sufficiency of the cause for incarceration, and fails to allege the incarceration is unlawful, habeas corpus is not appropriate. It is not within the scope of the writ of habeas corpus to remedy other constitutional claims relating to the conditions of incarceration. Sage v. Gamble, 279 Mont. 459, 463, 929 P.2d 822, 824 (1996), citing Gates v. Missoula County, 235 Mont. 261, 766 P.2d 884 (1988).
A sentence that exceeds the statutory maximum for the crime charged or which either exceeds the statutory maximum for the crime charged or which violated the constitutional right to be free from double jeopardy may be challenged based upon legality. Lott v. State, 2006 MT 279, ¶ 22, 334 Mont. 270, 150 P.3d 337.
A sentence is only valid insofar as the power of the court extends and is invalid as to the excess. State v. Southwick, 2007 MT 257, ¶ 28, 339 Mont. 281, 169 P.3d 698, citing DeShields v. State, 2006 MT 58, ¶ 11, 321 Mont. 329, 132 P.3d 540.