Michael Miller v. State
2012 MT 131
| Mont. | 2012Background
- Miller was convicted of deliberate homicide after a jury trial and his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- Miller filed a postconviction relief petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel.
- The District Court dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim, concluding the claims were exhausted, record-based, or not properly pleaded.
- Miller challenged prosecutorial remarks, use of PowerPoint slides, and several witness-impeachment arguments as ineffective assistance.
- The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding Miller’s claims were without merit and remand was unnecessary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petition was properly dismissed on appellate-ineffectiveness grounds | Miller contends appellate counsel failed to raise trial-counsel ineffectiveness. | State argues the record resolves merits; remand unnecessary. | No reversible error; record supports merits review without remand. |
| Whether PowerPoint use at trial supported an ineffective-assistance claim | Trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting or seeking record entry. | No prejudice shown; lack of prejudice defeats the claim. | Claim meritless; no prejudice established. |
| Whether Johnson's credibility and drinking were properly impeached by trial counsel | Trial counsel failed to impeach conflicting statements about drinking and other details. | Counsel impeached inconsistencies; no prejudice shown. | No ineffective assistance; impeachments and closing arguments undermined prejudice. |
| Whether Johnson's parking-lot testimony and key-ignition testimony were properly impeached | Trial counsel failed to attack Johnson's statements on parking and keys. | Counsel impeached with prior statements; defense argument highlighted inconsistencies. | Claims fail; no prejudice shown. |
| Whether the prosecutor's closing arguments and references to testimony during motion-to-dismiss were prejudicial | Prosecutor improperly vouched for witnesses and referenced evidence unduly. | Arguments were supported by the record; not prejudicial to outcome. | Not prejudicial; Strickland prongs unmet. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court (1984)) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)
- St. Germain v. State, 2012 MT 86 (Mont. 2012) (applies Strickland framework to postconviction claims)
- Whitlow v. State, 343 Mont. 90 (2008 MT 140) (defers to Strickland for appellate counsel ineffectiveness)
- Rogers v. State, 2011 MT 105 (Mont. 2011) (appellate counsel ineffectiveness standard and review)
- DuBray v. State, 342 Mont. 520 (2008 MT 121) (reasonable probability standard for prejudice in appeals)
- Baca v. State, 346 Mont. 474 (2008 MT 371) (heavy burden to overturn district court on postconviction claims)
- Hammer v. State, 346 Mont. 279 (2008 MT 342) (standards for reviewing district court factual findings)