208 A.3d 371
Me.2019Background
- Jonathan Petgrave pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a scheduled drug and received a sentence with most time suspended and a term of probation; the State later moved to revoke his probation based on alleged violent and firearm offenses.
- Following an evidentiary hearing the trial court found a violation and fully revoked Petgrave's probation, ordering him to serve the remaining term; Petgrave sought discretionary appellate review and a certificate of probable cause, which was denied.
- Petgrave (with new counsel) filed a post-conviction review petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at the revocation hearing; the trial court summarily dismissed it as post-conviction review is statutorily unavailable for probation revocations.
- Statutory framework: 17-A M.R.S. § 1207(1) makes review of probation revocation a discretionary appeal to the Law Court; 15 M.R.S. §§ 2121–2132 (post-conviction review) excludes "revocation of probation" from post-sentencing proceedings.
- The Law Court recognized that a defendant has a due process right to effective assistance of counsel in probation revocation proceedings and that Strickland applies to such claims.
- Because direct appeal historically does not permit ineffective assistance claims (State v. Nichols) and post-conviction review is unavailable here, the Court created a procedure to ensure meaningful review and a developed record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defendant in a probation revocation hearing has a right to effective assistance of counsel | Petgrave: due process requires effective assistance beyond mere appointment | State: agrees defendant has right to effective counsel but argues existing remedies control | Yes — defendant has right to effective assistance in probation revocation proceedings |
| Applicable legal standard for ineffective assistance claims arising from probation revocation | Petgrave: Strickland should govern | State: agrees Strickland applies | Strickland v. Washington two-part test applies |
| Whether post-conviction review under Title 15 is available for probation revocation claims | Petgrave: sought relief via post-conviction review | State: trial court: Title 15 excludes revocation of probation; remedy is discretionary appeal under §1207(1) | Title 15 does not apply to revocation of probation; post-conviction review unavailable |
| How a defendant may obtain a meaningful evidentiary record and review of ineffective assistance claims given statutory limits and Nichols rule | Petgrave: must be able to obtain evidentiary hearing to develop record | State: discretionary appeal is the statutory route; Nichols bars ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal | Court permits a Rule 33 motion (new trial) filed within 35 days to assert ineffective-assistance claims; if affidavit alleges prima facie claim, the revoking judge applies Strickland and may hold an evidentiary hearing; parties may then appeal discretionary rulings as needed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Sup. Ct.) (two-part ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard)
- In re Henry B., 159 A.3d 824 (Me. 2017) (effective-assistance right applied in civil commitment context)
- In re M.P., 126 A.3d 718 (Me. 2015) (Strickland standard applied to parental-termination proceedings)
- Fahnley v. State, 188 A.3d 871 (Me. 2018) (application of Strickland in criminal-trial context)
- State v. Nichols, 698 A.2d 521 (Me. 1997) (rule barring ineffective-assistance claims on direct criminal appeal)
- Kimball v. State, 490 A.2d 653 (Me. 1985) (post-conviction review construed to preserve habeas-type evidentiary hearings)
- James v. State, 953 A.2d 1152 (Me. 2008) (post-conviction review replaces post-conviction habeas to the extent provided by statute)
- Opinion of the Justices, 170 A.2d 660 (Me. 1961) (habeas corpus protections remain despite legislative enactment)