Buettner v. State, 363 P.3d 1147

In Feb 2012 Buettner pleaded guilty to amended criminal endangerment under a § 46-12-211 plea agreement recommending 5 years at MSP; plea forms and colloquy indicated the court was not bound and he could not withdraw the plea if the court rejected the recommendation.
At plea colloquy Buettner acknowledged understanding the nonbinding nature of the recommendation and that he was waiving trial rights; court accepted the plea.
At sentencing the court imposed 10 years at MSP (no time suspended) on Dec 19, 2012.
Buettner filed pro se motions to withdraw his plea and to correct sentence, appealed unsuccessfully, sought an out-of-time appeal (denied), then filed a post-conviction petition claiming ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to file a motion to withdraw the plea or a notice of appeal.
The District Court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, concluding the plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered (so he could not withdraw) and that counsel’s alleged failures were not deficient or prejudicial; Buettner appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court abused discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing on post-conviction petition	Buettner: counsel’s alleged misconduct occurred in private; court should hold hearing to evaluate credibility and facts	State: plea was knowing/voluntary and § 46-12-211(1)(c) bars withdrawal, so petition fails as a matter of law and hearing unnecessary	No abuse of discretion; hearing not required because plea precluded relief
Whether plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered given alleged confusion over subsection (1)(b) vs (1)(c)	Buettner: thought plea was under (1)(b) and could withdraw if court rejected recommendation	State: plea paperwork and colloquy showed (1)(c) was in effect and Buettner acknowledged understanding nonbinding nature and waiver	Plea was knowing and voluntary; defendant understood nonbinding nature
Whether counsel was ineffective for not filing motion to withdraw plea	Buettner: would have filed or requested withdrawal; counsel failed to act	State: even if counsel had filed, withdrawal would have failed because plea under (1)(c) was valid	Counsel’s refusal/not filing was not deficient or prejudicial; claim fails
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to file a notice of appeal	Buettner: counsel failed to perfect appeal requested	State: no viable appeal from a voluntary (1)(c) plea simply because court imposed higher sentence; no prejudice	No ineffective assistance for failing to file appeal; claim fails

Beach v. State, 353 Mont. 411, 220 P.3d 667 (2009) (standard of review for denial of post-conviction relief)
Baca v. State, 346 Mont. 474, 197 P.3d 948 (2008) (ineffective assistance claims reviewed de novo)
State v. Spotted Blanket, 288 Mont. 126, 955 P.2d 1347 (1998) (guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily made waives nonjurisdictional defects)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Whitlow v. State, 343 Mont. 90, 183 P.3d 861 (2008) (applying Strickland in Montana)
State v. Wright, 307 Mont. 349, 42 P.3d 753 (2001) (prejudice in guilty-plea context requires showing he would have gone to trial)