Rukes v. State, 297 P.3d 1195

May 27, 2009, Rukes arrested for alleged assault; custodial interview not recorded, notes used as evidence; recording statute later in October 2009.
September 24, 2009, district court denied suppression because recording statute not yet in effect.
Trial logistics: Daly appointed to represent Rukes after Foley and Boggs withdrew; trial held March 10–11, 2010; jurors noted Rukes's guard nearby during trial.
March 11, 2010, jury convicted Rukes of felony aggravated assault and misdemeanor unlawful restraint; June 1, 2010 sentence: 20 years with 10 suspended, plus 6 months jail concurrently; mental evaluations ordered.
January 2011, appellate Anders brief filed; March 2011, this Court dismissed direct appeal as frivolous; Rukes filed pro se postconviction relief petition, which the district court dismissed February 8, 2012; appellate review follows.
Court affirms district court’s dismissal of postconviction relief petition, holding most claims barred by § 46-21-105(2), MCA, and lack merit on merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the suppression denial was correct.	Rukes argued the May 2009 interview should be suppressed for non-recorded custodial interrogation.	State contends recording statute applicable only after October 2009; issue addressed on direct appeal.	Issue barred; no reversible error; statute not in effect at time of interview.
Whether Rukes was denied a speedy trial.	Rukes asserted speedy-trial violation.	Pre-trial exchanges and waiver supported no merit on direct appeal.	Issue barred; affirmed on direct-appeal grounds.
Ineffective assistance of trial counsel (Daly).	Daly prejudiced defense by mischaracterizing Rukes and failing to move for a new trial for bailiff misconduct.	Record show no deficient performance or prejudice; claims meritless.	No reversible error; Daly's performance not shown deficient or prejudicial.
Ineffective assistance of pre-trial counsel (Foley & Boggs).	Counsel failed to provide plea details and explain consequences of trial vs. plea.	Affidavits show they advised and worked toward a favorable plea; no failure shown.	No reversible error; petition unsupported by material facts.
Counsels’ withdrawal and cumulative-error claim.	Withdrawal prejudiced defense; cumulative errors warrant reversal.	Withdrawal proper; cumulative-error standard not met given other findings.	No reversal; district court’s ruling affirmed.

State v. Howard, 2011 MT 246, 362 Mont. 196, 265 P.3d 606 (Mont. 2011) (ineffective-assistance standards; record-based inquiries accommodate direct-appeal review)
Porter v. State, 2002 MT 319, 313 Mont. 149, 60 P.3d 951 (Mont. 2002) (prejudice required for trial-type errors; failure to establish prejudice not deficient performance)
Baugh v. State, 174 Mont. 456, 571 P.2d 779 (Mont. 1977) (prejudice required for mistrial issues; incidental observations generally not reversible)
Whitlow v. State, 2008 MT 140, 343 Mont. 90, 183 P.3d 861 (Mont. 2008) (mixed law and fact; standard to review ineffective assistance on appeal)
Ellenburg v. Chase, 2004 MT 66, 320 Mont. 315, 87 P.3d 473 (Mont. 2004) (postconviction burden to show reversible error by substantial facts)
Kougl v. State, 2004 MT 243, 323 Mont. 6, 97 P.3d 1095 (Mont. 2004) (counsel's reasons must be in the record; speculative claims insufficient)
Miller v. State, 2012 MT 131, 365 Mont. 264, 280 P.3d 272 (Mont. 2012) (standards for reviewing postconviction relief; de novo review for ineffective assistance)
Rogers v. State, 2011 MT 105, 360 Mont. 334, 253 P.3d 889 (Mont. 2011) (appellate review of ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal)