Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Harley Howard was charged with incest and was sentenced to forty years' incarceration. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Howard was not denied effective assistance of counsel where he did not meet his burden of showing deficient performance by counsel's failure to challenge the competency of the State's two child witnesses or the admission of their hearsay statements; and (2) the district court's sentence was not augmented because Howard maintained his innocence, but rather, the sentence was within the statutory parameters for incest and was based on ample testimony relating to Howard's treatment potential, risk to his children, and numerous psychosexual evaluations.

Appellant Angela O'Connell was involved in a theft scheme whereby Appellant's husband would steal property from a local business and sell the stolen goods for cash. Appellant pled guilty to accountability for theft pursuant to a plea agreement. Upon sentencing, Appellant was prohibited from entering bars and casinos and consuming alcohol, and was ordered to pay restitution to the business she stole from in the amount of $159,606. The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) because the district court's determination of lost profits in this matter was based upon speculation and not supported by substantial evidence, the district court erred by ordering payment of lost profits, in addition to the replacement value of the stolen property, as part of Appellant's restitution obligation, and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by prohibiting Appellant from entering bars as a condition of her sentence because the restriction furthered Appellant's rehabilitation. Remanded for recalculation of restitution based upon the replacement value of the stolen property.

Robert Riggs was convicted by a jury of incest, sexual intercourse without consent, and two counts of sexual assault. Riggs filed an amended petition for postconviction relief, alleging approximately eighty claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court partially denied Riggs' petition, finding many of the claims were barred for various reasons. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Riggs' remaining twelve claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that counsel was not ineffective in his pretrial work, and counsel did not make the errors alleged by Riggs during trial. Because the Court found no ineffective assistance of counsel on Riggs' individual claims, the Court found there was no cumulative error.

John Miller pled guilty to two counts of deliberate homicide. Miller later filed suit against James Goetz, the attorney that defended him, and arranged for Patrick Begley's limited representation in his claims against Goetz. Begley later withdrew from representing Miller. Miller then filed suit against Begley, alleging breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and fraudulent deceit. The district court granted summary judgment to Begley, finding that Begley had reasonably assisted Miller with his claims against Goetz and the dismissal of the Goetz claim was based on legal deficiencies unrelated to Begley's legal services. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Begley as Miller failed to demonstrate genuine issues of material fact existed regarding his claims.

Jule Roundstone was convicted of assault with a weapon and sentenced to a five-year commitment to the department of corrections (DOC). Roundstone's request for a furlough was granted, and he was released for a ten-day period. Roundstone failed to report after the first day of his furlough and was apprehended about a month later. Roundstone was charged with felony escape pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 45-7-306. The district court denied Roundstone's motion to dismiss the charge as to the allegation that Roundstone had removed himself from official detention while on furlough and, therefore, could not commit escape. Roundstone entered a plea of guilty to the charge, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. Roundstone was sentenced to ten years at the DOC, with five years suspended. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Roundstone's motion to dismiss as Roundstone was not excluded from official detention while on furlough, and (2) the prosecution did not violate Roundstone's due process rights by making certain sentencing recommendations during the sentencing hearing.

Scott Heddings was charged with felony incest in State court. While the incest charge was pending, Heddings was charged in federal court with receipt of child pornography, possession of child pornography, and destruction or removal of property to prevent seizure. Heddings pled guilty to federal court to these charges. Heddings then pled guilty to the incest charge in State court. Heddings subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, arguing (1) he was subjected to double jeopardy because he was sentenced in State court for conduct that was used to enhance his federal sentence, and (2) his trial counsel was ineffective because counsel did not challenge the State court charge on double jeopardy grounds. The district court denied the petition, concluding that because the federal and State charges were based on separate conduct, Heddings' double jeopardy claim had no legal merit and, therefore, it would have been frivolous for his counsel to raise that claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the failure of Heddings' trial counsel to move for the dismissal of the State incest charge on double jeopardy grounds did not constitute ineffective assistance since the motion lacked merit and would not have changed the outcome of the proceedings.

Defendant John Finley's wife pleaded guilty to felony theft, and later, her probation officer conducted a valid search of her home. During a search of a safe in the couple's bedroom, the officer discovered drugs and drug paraphernalia. Defendant later entered conditional plea agreements to felony criminal possession of dangerous drugs and misdemeanor criminal possession of drug paraphernalia while reserving his right to appeal the district court's denial of his suppression motion. On appeal, Defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the evidence found in the safe, arguing that the probation officer exceeded the scope of the probationary search. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the probation officer legally searched the unlocked and open safe pursuant to the valid probationary search.

Defendant Hector Valdez-Mendoza pleaded guilty to one count of sexual assault. After the district court granted Defendant's request for new counsel, Defendant filed a motion to withdraw plea of guilty, asserting in part that he had good cause to withdraw his guilty plea because his previous defense counsel convinced him he could not get a fair trial. The district court denied Valdez-Mendoza's motion. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction, holding that Defendant had good cause to withdraw his guilty plea because his previous defense counsel shared her belief with Defendant that he could not get a fair trial and made no attempt to assuage Defendant's fear of an unfair trial. Remanded.

After a jury trial, Richard Edwards was found guilty of deliberate homicide. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding (1) the district court did not err when it permitted Edwards' wife's testimony because (a) her observations of Edwards' actions did not constitute spousal communications and therefore were not privileged, and (b) Edwards' marital communications regarding the murder that were accompanied by threats were not privileged because they were not communicated in reliance on the confidence of the marital relationship; (2) Edwards was not denied effective assistance of counsel because he failed to show he was prejudiced by defense counsel's admission of lack of preparation for cross-examination; and (3) while it was error for the district court not to inquire into Edwards' post-trial motion for new counsel, reversal in this case was not required because Edwards did not allege a conflict that resulted in a total lack of communication, nor did he claim that his attorneys were unable or unwilling to represent him at the sentencing hearing.

Rosina Spaulding pleaded guilty in district court to misdemeanor DUI per se. Spaudling reserved the right to appeal the district court's denial of her motion to suppress. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding the district court correctly denied Spaulding's motion to suppress as (1) although Spaulding was temporarily seized when a deputy sheriff pulled her vehicle over, made contact with her, and inquired as to her and her passengers' well-being, (2) the warrantless seizure was constitutionally reasonable because it met the criteria of the community caretaker doctrine, which allows a government official to stop and investigate a citizen without a warrant when there are objective, specific, and articulable facts from which an experienced officer would suspect that citizen is in need of help or is in peril.