Lacey v. State
2017 MT 18
Mont.2017Background
- In 2005 police seized Lacey’s laptop (with his girlfriend Dozier’s consent) and searched it under a federal warrant; investigators found extensive child pornography and video evidence of sexual abuse. Lacey was prosecuted federally and in state court.
- Lacey pleaded guilty in federal court to sexual exploitation and possession of child pornography and received a 30-year sentence; he later pled guilty in Montana to multiple sexual-assault counts (reserving suppression issues) and was sentenced to life.
- Lacey moved to suppress the laptop and garage/container evidence; the district court denied suppression; this Court affirmed on direct appeal, applying third‑party consent for garage items and the inevitable‑discovery doctrine for the laptop (State v. Lacey).
- In postconviction proceedings Lacey asserted four ineffective‑assistance claims: (1) counsel failed to challenge exceptions to Wong Sun/fruit‑of‑the‑poisonous‑tree, (2) counsel failed to challenge warrantless seizure of garage items once opened, (3) counsel failed to seek a writ of supervisory control after suppression denial, and (4) counsel failed to move to dismiss state charges on multiple‑prosecution/double jeopardy grounds after federal conviction.
- The district court dismissed or denied relief, counsel appointment, and an evidentiary hearing; on appeal the Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding most claims barred by direct‑appeal res judicata or incapable of showing deficient performance, but addressed supervisory‑control and double‑jeopardy ineffective‑assistance claims on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Lacey’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether postconviction claims attacking suppression rulings were cognizable | Lacey: counsel was ineffective for not challenging exceptions to Wong Sun and seizure rules | State: suppression issues were raised/decided on direct appeal or could have been raised; barred by §46‑21‑105(2) and res judicata | Denied — suppression claims barred by direct appeal/res judicata; Court already decided exceptions and consent issues on the merits |
| Whether counsel erred for not filing writ of supervisory control after suppression denial | Lacey: counsel should have sought supervisory control | State: writs are extraordinary; ordinary appeal sufficed; counsel’s choice was reasonable | Denied — counsel reasonably declined; writ not appropriate; no deficient performance |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to dismiss state charges on multiple‑prosecution/double jeopardy grounds after federal plea | Lacey: Neufeld shows state prosecution barred; counsel should have moved to dismiss | State: Neufeld decided after Lacey’s appeal; prior Montana precedent did not clearly support dismissal; counsel not judged by later law | Denied — counsel not deficient; Neufeld was not settled law at the time |
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying appointed counsel and an evidentiary hearing | Lacey: needed counsel and hearing to develop claims outside record | State: petition failed to state a claim; record sufficient for dismissal | Denied — no abuse of discretion; no hearing or counsel required given lack of viable claims |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lacey, 204 P.3d 1192 (Mont. 2009) (direct‑appeal decision affirming admissibility via third‑party consent and inevitable discovery)
- Neufeld v. State, 212 P.3d 1063 (Mont. 2009) (holding federal and state prosecutions could be equivalent for multiple‑prosecution statute)
- State v. Gazda, 82 P.3d 20 (Mont. 2003) (no double jeopardy where federal and state offenses were not equivalent)
- State v. Cech, 167 P.3d 389 (Mont. 2007) (conduct can constitute equivalent offenses in multiple jurisdictions)
- State v. Sword, 747 P.2d 206 (Mont. 1987) (concurrent jurisdiction where statutes substantially similar)
- Zimmerman v. State, 573 P.2d 174 (Mont. 1977) (concurrent jurisdiction analysis for embezzlement charges)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1963) (fruit‑of‑the‑poisonous‑tree doctrine)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)