285 P.3d 396
Mont.2012Background
- Bomar was charged in 2005 with sexual assault and attempted sexual intercourse without consent for acts alleged in 2000 when K.J. was six.
- Jury convicted Bomar of sexual assault and acquitted the attempted sexual intercourse without consent; he was sentenced to 27 years with 12 suspended.
- This Court affirmed Bomar’s conviction on appeal, and postconviction relief was sought alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
- The postconviction court held an evidentiary hearing and dismissed the petition; Bomar appealed arguing ineffective assistance on multiple fronts.
- The record shows persistent defense efforts to limit Beley’s testimony, to challenge Beley, and to introduce rebuttal medical evidence.
- The Montana Supreme Court reaffirmed that, under Strickland, Bomar must prove both deficient performance and prejudice; here neither prong was met.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly dismissed the petition | Bomar contends trial counsel were ineffective. | State asserts counsel acted within reasonable strategy; no prejudice. | Dismissal affirmed; Strickland prongs not satisfied. |
| Did counsel's handling of Beley testimony constitute ineffective assistance | Bomar argues Beley’s testimony should have been rebutted more fully (Dr. Zook) and Beley’s credibility challenged. | Counsel vigorously challenged Beley; no deficient performance under prevailing norms. | Not ineffective; first prong failed. |
| Was failure to introduce promised medical evidence ineffective assistance | Defensive promise to present medical evidence was unfulfilled and prejudicial. | Strategy to avoid opening door to contradictory expert testimony; penetration issue moot. | Not ineffective; lack of prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance)
- Whitlow v. State, 343 Mont. 90, 183 P.3d 861 (2008 MT) (deference to counsel's strategy; mixed questions of law and fact)
- Worthan v. State, 2010 MT 98, 356 Mont. 206, 232 P.3d 380 (2010 MT) (promised unevoked expert testimony not prejudicial)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. _, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (reasonable competence, not perfect advocacy)
- Rogers v. State, 2011 MT 105, 360 Mont. 334, 253 P.3d 889 (2011 MT) (standard of review for postconviction factual findings and mixed questions)
- State v. Scheffelman, 250 Mont. 334, 820 P.2d 1293 (1991) (test for admissibility of expert testimony on credibility of child victims)