State v. B. Howard, 2017 MT 285

Late-night assault on March 31, 2014: victim Jerome Wiherski suffered serious head and facial injuries; officers identified Barton Howard as the attacker and recorded Howard admitting the assault at his residence without a Miranda warning.
Howard was charged with aggravated assault; he proceeded through multiple counsel changes, intermittent pro se filings, and repeated requests to represent himself (Faretta issues).
Defense attempted suppression of Howard’s recorded statement and sought to exclude certain State witnesses; the district court denied suppression (found Howard not in custody for Miranda) and admitted evidence.
Disputes over discovery prompted Gillham protective proceedings to question former counsel about what discovery they provided to Howard.
At trial, an intended alibi witness (Howard’s father) was excluded as untimely; Howard initially proceeded pro se then accepted counsel; parties reached a plea to felony criminal endangerment and Howard entered a no contest plea preserving some pretrial rulings.
Postplea attempts to withdraw the plea and renewed claims of self-representation were denied; Howard appealed asserting judicial bias and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether judicial bias claim may be reviewed for plain error	State: Claim was unpreserved and does not warrant plain error review	Howard: Judge’s comments/rulings and treatment created judicial hostility and bias requiring reversal	Court declined plain error review; rulings and record did not show bias or fundamental error
Whether Faretta error occurred when Howard waived/was denied counsel	State: Faretta warnings and colloquies were adequate; waiver was voluntary	Howard: Court failed to fully advise him of dangers of self-representation, showing bias	Court questioned but found Faretta warnings likely sufficient and waiver knowing; no independently raised Faretta error on appeal
Whether Gillham proceedings were improper at trial	State: Gillham was warranted to resolve discovery questions and counsel conduct	Howard: Use of Gillham was improper and evidence of bias	Court acknowledged caution about Gillham but found its use permissible under circumstances; not basis for plain error
Whether ineffective assistance claims are reviewable on direct appeal	State: Record is inadequate to resolve IAC claims on direct appeal	Howard: Counsel breached loyalty and made prejudicial disclosures (e.g., alibi remarks)	Court held IAC claims not factually established on record and are more appropriate for postconviction relief

Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (judicial rulings alone generally do not establish bias)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation warnings requirement)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (right to self-representation and waiver standards)
State v. Nuessle, 386 Mont. 18 (2016) (plain error review applied sparingly; standard for unpreserved claims)
State v. Williams, 380 Mont. 445 (2015) (requirements for plain error review of unpreserved claims)
State v. Cheetham, 384 Mont. 1 (2016) (cautioning use of Gillham proceedings outside postconviction context)