State v. C. Stratton
2017 MT 112
Mont.2017Background
- In Aug. 2013 Stratton was charged after a standoff with police: 3 counts felony criminal endangerment, PFMA, obstructing peace officer, two violations of protection order, and resisting arrest.
- Trial was set ~300 days after filing; Stratton moved to dismiss for speedy trial violation.
- Before the speedy-trial motion hearing, Stratton and the State entered a § 46-12-211(1)(b) plea agreement: plead guilty to one felony criminal endangerment and one PFMA; State to dismiss remaining counts; recommended concurrent suspended sentences.
- At the scheduled sentencing hearing the prosecutor informed the court some officers opposed the plea and identified a victim statement; the court called witnesses opposed to the plea and, after hearing them, rejected the plea agreement.
- Stratton withdrew his pleas, did not obtain a ruling on his earlier speedy-trial motion, proceeded to jury trial, and was convicted on all eight counts; sentenced to consecutive and concurrent prison terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ineffective-assistance claim is reviewable on direct appeal | State: review limited; record-based claims only | Stratton: counsel was ineffective for not seeking a ruling on speedy-trial motion; reviewable now | Denied: record silent on counsel’s reasons; claim not apparent on record and must be raised in postconviction relief |
| Whether specific performance of alleged breached plea is available | State: no plain-error relief because defendant withdrew plea and elected remedy | Stratton: State breached plea (undermined agreement at hearing); seeks specific performance now | Denied: even if breach occurred, Stratton withdrew plea under § 46-12-211 and cannot now demand the alternative remedy of specific performance |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitlow v. State, 343 Mont. 90 (discussing de novo review of ineffective assistance when record allows)
- Fender, 339 Mont. 395 (non-record-based IAC review only when no justification for counsel’s actions)
- Kougl, 323 Mont. 6 (distinguishing “whether” vs. “why” questions on direct-reviewable IAC claims)
- Sartain, 357 Mont. 483 (IAC claims typically reserved for PCR where record is insufficient)
- Rardon, 313 Mont. 321 (plain-error review and remedies for breached plea agreements)
- Favel, 381 Mont. 472 (definitive ruling required to preserve some issues for appeal)
- Lewis, 335 Mont. 331 (presumption counsel provided reasonable professional assistance)
- Taylor, 356 Mont. 167 (plain error can reach unpreserved claims implicating fundamental rights)
- Lacey v. State, 386 Mont. 204 (postconviction relief is proper forum for certain IAC claims)