398 P.3d 259
Mont.2017Background
- Peterson entered Alford guilty pleas to violent felonies and was sentenced on November 23, 2009.
- He filed a timely notice of appeal (Jan 22, 2010), later moved to dismiss that appeal (granted Nov 5, 2010), and then sought to withdraw his pleas in district court (motion filed Nov 22, 2010).
- The district court denied the plea-withdrawal motion on December 14, 2011; this Court affirmed on direct appeal in State v. Peterson (2013) and denied rehearing.
- Peterson filed a petition for postconviction relief on December 17, 2014, alleging prosecutorial discovery misconduct and newly discovered evidence concerning the victim’s mental-health and alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The State argued the petition was untimely.
- The district court concluded the petition was timely (measuring the deadline from this Court’s Peterson decision) but denied relief on the merits; the Supreme Court of Montana reviewed timeliness and the newly discovered evidence claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the postconviction petition timely under §46-21-102(1), MCA? | Peterson argued filing within one year + 90 days of this Court’s Peterson decision made his petition timely. | State argued the one-year period runs from when the conviction became final (Nov 5, 2010), so petition (Dec 17, 2014) was late. | Court held conviction became final Nov 5, 2010; petition due Nov 5, 2011; petition was untimely. |
| Does filing a post-sentence motion to withdraw a plea toll the postconviction deadline? | Peterson relied on the district court’s tolling calculation tied to the later appellate decision. | State: motion to withdraw does not toll the statutory one-year postconviction deadline; only direct appeal tolls both deadlines. | Court held motion to withdraw does not extend the postconviction deadline; deadlines run concurrently from exhaustion/expiration of direct appeal. |
| Does newly discovered evidence under §46-21-102(2), MCA, excuse untimeliness? | Peterson claimed undisclosed police reports and investigator materials showed victim’s prior interactions with police and constituted newly discovered evidence. | State argued the materials were either already disclosed or irrelevant to whether Peterson committed the charged crimes and that Peterson failed to show when he discovered them. | Court held Peterson failed to prove the documents were newly discovered evidence that would demonstrate he did not commit the crimes; exception did not apply. |
| Are claims of ineffective assistance regarding the motion to withdraw pleas barred? | Peterson argued counsel was ineffective in plea-related proceedings and in the withdrawal motion. | State asserted res judicata and that the claims arose after conviction finality and do not excuse untimeliness. | Court held many such claims were addressed on direct appeal (res judicata) and the rest are time-barred and not saved by the newly discovered evidence exception. |
Key Cases Cited
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (recognizing Alford plea as a guilty plea for purposes of conviction)
- State v. Burns, 365 Mont. 27 (guilty plea must be voluntary, knowing, intelligent)
- Sartain v. State, 365 Mont. 483 (standard of review for postconviction denial)
- State v. Peterson, 372 Mont. 382 (direct-appeal opinion addressing motion to withdraw Alford pleas)
- Taylor v. State, 375 Mont. 234 (no obligation for prosecution to investigate or produce evidence helpful to defense)
- Smith v. State, 303 Mont. 47 (res judicata bars relitigation of claims decided on direct appeal)
- Keuffer v. O.F. Mossberg & Sons, Inc., 383 Mont. 439 (appellate court may affirm district court for right result despite wrong reasoning)
- State v. Herman, 343 Mont. 494 (distinguishes record-based and non-record-based claims for postconviction relief)