Riggs v. State, 264 P.3d 693

Riggs was convicted by jury of incest, sexual intercourse without consent, and two counts of sexual assault involving four young girls; he received 24 years to prison plus a 25-year suspended sentence.
This Court previously affirmed the conviction in State v. Riggs, 2005 MT 124, par. 1.
Riggs, acting pro se, filed a first postconviction petition in 2006; counsel later filed an amended petition asserting about 80 ineffective-assistance claims against trial counsel Watson.
The District Court partially denied the petition; remaining claims were tried in an evidentiary hearing in October 2009, and denied in September 2010.
The issues on appeal concern alleged pretrial and trial counsel deficiencies under Strickland v. Washington.
The Montana Supreme Court affirms, concluding no ineffective-assistance claims were proven and no cumulative error occurred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Pretrial motions were deficient.	Riggs claims Watson failed to file motions beyond severance.	Watson did more than sever; he moved to dismiss charges and excluded evidence; no complete failure.	No ineffective assistance; no prejudice shown.
Failure to interview witnesses.	Watson did not interview key witnesses (Gonder, Daron, Sullivan) who could exonerate Riggs.	Watson interviewed those reasonably capable of information; lack of interviewing these witnesses did not produce a reasonable probability of different outcome.	No ineffective assistance; insufficiency of prejudice shown.
Amendment of the information.	Amendment to change date from March 2001 to November 2000 was substantive; Watson should have objected.	Amendment was form-only; timing not a material ingredient; no prejudice from lack of objection.	No ineffective assistance; no prejudice shown.
Witness preparation and strategy.	Watson failed to prepare Riggs and LaRae adequately; improper trial preparation.	Watson spent substantial time; strategic choices beyond perfect advocacy; no prejudicial failure.	No ineffective assistance; no prejudice shown.
State's rebuttal expert and disclosure.	Watson failed to object to late disclosure or missing expert report by Dr. Bellante.	Bellante’s testimony not within the statute's scope or the notice was timely; objections not objectively unreasonable.	No ineffective assistance; no prejudice shown.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance; deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Gunderson, 357 Mont. 142 (2010 MT 166) (de novo review; establish prejudice and performance under Strickland)
State v. Savage, 248 P.3d 308 (2011 MT 23) (reiterates Strickland framework in Montana)
Whitlow v. State, 183 P.3d 861 (2008 MT 140) (strong presumption of reasonable professional assistance; hindsight discouraged)
Robinson v. State, 232 P.3d 403 (2010 MT 108) (defines prejudice standard for Strickland in Montana)
State v. Rose, 202 P.3d 749 (2009 MT 4) (prejudice inquiry for ineffective assistance)
In re B.P., 35 P.3d 291 (2001 MT 219) (limits on appellate formulation of arguments; focus on assigned issues)