State v. Heavygun, 2011 MT 111

Heavygun was convicted by jury in Cascade County of deliberate homicide, DUI, violation of an order of protection, criminal endangerment, driving with suspended license, and tampering with physical evidence.
He sought to be present at his omnibus hearing; a motion to transport him was denied and the hearing proceeded without him, with only a statutorily required memorandum on the record.
Heavygun filed an objection after the hearing renewing his request to be present and to have the omnibus hearing on the record; the objection was denied.
The district court described omnibus hearings as procedural, not containing substantive rulings, and noted the presence of the defendant is not required unless ordered by the court.
A second omnibus hearing occurred on March 3, 2010 after the State filed an Amended Information, with Heavygun absent and no recorded objection from defense counsel.
Heavygun was represented by multiple attorneys from the Office of the State Public Defender, with concerns raised about communication and continuity of counsel; the court suggested potential ineffective assistance could be raised later.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Heavygun's absence at the omnibus hearing violate his right to be present at critical stages?	Heavygun asserts violation of constitutional and statutory rights to be present at a critical stage.	The State argues omnibus hearing is not a critical stage and presence is not required by statute absent court order.	Affirmed; Heavygun's absence did not prejudice him; we assume critical-stage status but uphold harmless error analysis.
Should Heavygun's ineffective assistance claim be resolved on direct appeal or postconviction?	Heavygun contends his counsel's representation was ineffective due to multiple substitutions and poor communication.	The State argues record is insufficient to evaluate 'why' counsel acted; issues are better left for postconviction.	Dismissed without prejudice to raising in a postconviction proceeding.

State v. Charlie, 2010 MT 195 (Mont. Supreme Court, 2010) (defines right to be present at all critical stages; plenary review on constitutional question)
State v. Berosik, 2009 MT 260 (Mont. Supreme Court, 2009) (critical-stage and presence considerations; voir dire and in-chambers discussions considered)
State v. Price, 2009 MT 129 (Mont. Supreme Court, 2009) (presence rights tied to opportunity to defend; substantial relation standard)
State v. Matt, 2008 MT 444 (Mont. Supreme Court, 2008) (in-chambers issues and motions; overruled in part by Charlie)
State v. Sartain, 2010 MT 213 (Mont. Supreme Court, 2010) (ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal; when record silent, postconviction appropriate)
State v. VonBergen, 2003 MT 265 (Mont. Supreme Court, 2003) (timeliness and waiver of pretrial motions; omnibus hearing deadlines)
State v. Rovin, 2009 MT 16 (Mont. Supreme Court, 2009) (de novo review of ineffective assistance on direct appeal when record adequate)