Scott Heddings v. State
2011 MT 228
| Mont. | 2011Background
- Heddings, self-represented, sought postconviction relief challenging his incest conviction and alleged ineffective counsel and double jeopardy.
- State charged Heddings with felony incest in 2005; federal authorities later charged him with receipt/possession of child pornography and destruction of property (2004–2005).
- Federal sentencing credited a pattern of exploitative conduct; federal sentence was 240 months with concurrent terms on other charges.
- State plea: Heddings pled guilty to incest (2007) with a proposed 20-year term, 16 suspended, concurrent with federal sentence.
- District Court denied postconviction relief, holding no merit to double jeopardy claim and no ineffective assistance, no evidentiary hearing.
- This Court affirmed, applying Strickland v. Washington and Montana double jeopardy precedents to conclude counsel’s failure to raise a double jeopardy objection was not ineffective.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Heddings was denied effective assistance of counsel. | Heddings argues double jeopardy merits and counsel failed to raise the objection. | State contends arguments lack merit; different transactions and victims mean no double jeopardy and no ineffective assistance. | No; counsel's performance not deficient; outcome unlikely to change. |
Key Cases Cited
- Witte v. United States, 515 U.S. 389 (U.S. Supreme Court 1995) (double jeopardy not bar when underlying conduct used to enhance sentence)
- State v. Anderson, 291 Mont. 242, 967 P.2d 413 (Mt. 1998) (double jeopardy evaluation in Montana context)
- State v. Neufeld, 351 Mont. 389, 212 P.3d 1063 (Mt. 2009) (same transaction concept; multiple prosecutions with same objective)
- State v. Tadewaldt, 277 Mont. 261, 922 P.2d 463 (Mt. 1996) (three-part test for former prosecution in another jurisdiction)
- State v. Guillaume, 1999 MT 29, 293 Mont. 224, 975 P.2d 312 (Mt. 1999) (Montana constitutional double jeopardy greater protections than federal)
- Ankeny v. State, 358 Mont. 32, 243 P.3d 391 (Mt. 2010) (Strickland standard and mixed questions of law and fact for ineffectiveness)
- Whitlow v. State, 343 Mont. 90, 183 P.3d 861 (Mt. 2008) (reasonable-strickland performance and counsel’s trial strategy deference)
- State v. Maki, 322 Mont. 420, 97 P.3d 556 (Mt. 2004) (application of Strickland to counsel decisions)
- State v. Frasure, 323 Mont. 479, 100 P.3d 1013 (Mt. 2004) (counsel's decisions under Strickland evaluated against objective reasonableness)