E. Bullman v. State
2017 MT 301N
| Mont. | 2017Background
- In 2006 Bullman was convicted by a jury of incest and sexual assault of his stepdaughter, J.T.; he later appealed and his convictions/sentencing were reviewed in State v. Bullman (Bullman I).
- Bullman filed a petition for postconviction relief (PCR) alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC), prosecutorial misconduct, failure to disclose evidence, improper admission of other‑acts evidence, and exclusion of an expert.
- The District Court limited Bullman from adding new claims to his amended PCR; Bullman nevertheless added claims, and the court denied his amended petition. This Court found the original judge disqualified on remand and sent the matter back for reconsideration by a different judge (Bullman III).
- On remand, Judge Ulbricht denied Bullman’s PCR, finding many assertions conclusory or procedurally barred, that trial counsel’s investigation and trial decisions were reasonable, and that evidentiary rulings (including prior acts and expert testimony limits) were proper.
- Bullman appealed; the Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding many claims were procedurally barred, declining to consider new issues raised for the first time on appeal, and ruling Bullman failed to meet Strickland’s first prong for IAC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bullman may raise new or additional PCR claims in his amended petition | Bullman argued he should be allowed to assert additional claims in amended PCR | State argued the District Court properly precluded new claims and PCR pleading rules bar belated issues | Court affirmed that new claims were barred; issues not raised in original petition not considered |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (including collusion with defense/expert) | Bullman alleged prosecutor interfered with cross‑examination and colluded to educate State expert | State argued such claims were either raised or could have been raised on direct appeal and are procedurally barred in PCR | Claims are procedurally barred and not considered on postconviction review |
| Admissibility of prior‑acts evidence | Bullman contends prior‑acts evidence was improperly admitted and highly prejudicial | State defends admission as relevant, probative, and not excluded under Rule 403; trial court acted within discretion | Bullman failed to brief the issue on appeal substantively; Court declined to address it |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (Strickland test) | Bullman claimed counsel failed to investigate/subpoena records and witnesses, failed to present alibi, colluded with prosecutor, and failed to impeach witnesses | State showed counsel investigated, made strategic choices (avoiding inadmissible evidence), challenged State expert, and cross‑examined witnesses; presumption of reasonable professional judgment applies | Court held Bullman did not show deficient performance under Strickland; PCR denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bullman, 349 Mont. 228, 203 P.3d 768 (Mont. 2009) (direct appeal addressing sufficiency of evidence and sentencing)
- Bullman v. State, 374 Mont. 323, 321 P.3d 121 (Mont. 2014) (remand for reconsideration because of judge disqualification)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑pronged test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Whitlow v. State, 343 Mont. 90, 183 P.3d 861 (Mont. 2008) (standards and burden for PCR and IAC claims)
- Lacey v. State, 386 Mont. 204, 389 P.3d 233 (Mont. 2017) (standard of review for denial of PCR)
- Ellenburg v. Chase, 320 Mont. 315, 87 P.3d 473 (Mont. 2004) (Court will not consider issues raised first on appeal)