Ellison v. State of Montana, 315 P.3d 950

Ellison was charged with arson in 2007 for fire damage to a vehicle owned by Dee Ames.
He pled no contest on April 1, 2008, under a plea agreement that purportedly allowed a five-year suspended sentence, with possible argument for lesser or deferred sentence.
At the change-of-plea, the State alleged the vehicle’s value exceeded $1,000; Ellison’s appraised value was $500, but his counsel deemed vehicle value irrelevant to the arson charge.
A surveillance video was proffered by the State as evidence; Ellison’s prior counsel knew of it and asserted it supported the State’s theory, while later affidavits claimed counsel provided the video to Ellison.
Ellison replaced trial counsel with an attorney who moved to withdraw the plea; the district court denied relief, and Ellison was sentenced to five years with all time suspended.
Ellison petitioned for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and misinterpretation of the arson statute; the district court denied relief, and the Montana Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the arson statute require a $1,000 vehicle-value threshold?	Ellison argues the threshold applies to vehicles.	State contends the threshold applies only to personal property, excluding vehicles.	Threshold does not apply to vehicles; arson can be proved regardless of vehicle value.
Was trial counsel ineffective for not objecting to the value issue and for handling the surveillance video?	Ellison claims counsel failed to argue the insufficient factual basis and mishandled the video.	State contends counsel acted reasonably under circumstances; objections would have been frivolous.	No ineffective-assistance; counsel's actions were reasonable and not deficient.
Was appellate counsel ineffective for not raising the surveillance-video issue on appeal?	Ellison asserts appellate counsel should have challenged the video evidence.	State argues reasonable choices by appellate counsel and waiver of issues.	Appellate counsel not ineffective; issues raised were reasonable.

State v. Letasky, 336 Mont. 178, 152 P.3d 1288 (2007 MT) (plain-language statute interpretation search)
State v. Booth, 364 Mont. 190, 727 P.3d 89 (2012 MT) (statutory interpretation guidance)
State v. Stiffarm, 359 Mont. 116, 250 P.3d 300 (2011 MT) (statutory construction principles)
State v. Heath, 321 Mont. 280, 90 P.3d 426 (2004 MT) (reading statutes as a whole)
Home Bldg. & Loan Ass’n of Helena v. Fulton, 375 P.2d 312 (Mont. 1962) (whole-text reading of statutes)
State v. Gould, 273 Mont. 207, 902 P.2d 532 (Mont. 1995) (interpretive approach to statutory text)
In re R.L.S., 293 Mont. 288, 977 P.2d 967 (1999 MT) (contextual statutory interpretation)
Schuff v. A.T. Kelmens & Sons, 303 Mont. 274, 16 P.3d 1002 (2000 MT) (comprehensive statutory reading)
Heddings v. State, 326 Mont. 90, 265 P.3d 600 (2011 MT) (ineffective-assistance framework)
State v. Hildreth, 884 P.2d 771 (Mont.) (ineffective assistance and merits)
State v. Maki, 322 Mont. 420, 97 P.3d 556 (2004 MT) (counsel performance standard in postconviction)
State v. Frasure, 323 Mont. 479, 100 P.3d 1013 (2004 MT) (postconviction standards)
Adams v. State, 336 Mont. 63, 153 P.3d 601 (2007 MT) (defense investigations and strategy)
Foston v. State, 358 Mont. 469, 245 P.3d 1103 (2010 MT) (considerations in ineffective assistance)
Rose v. State, 370 Mont. 398, 304 P.3d 387 (2013 MT) (appellate-counsel effectiveness standard)
State v. Henderson, 322 Mont. 69, 93 P.3d 1231 (2004 MT) (prejudice showing in guilty-plea context)