State v. Hendrickson
2014 MT 132
| Mont. | 2014Background
- In Feb 2012 Jenny LaTray reported that Hendrickson broke into her home, assaulted and choked her; injuries and scene corroborated the report. State charged Hendrickson with aggravated burglary and tampering. He pleaded not guilty at arraignment.
- LaTray gave multiple inconsistent statements between Feb and May 2012, at one point recanting and then returning to the original account.
- While on pretrial release, Hendrickson allegedly called LaTray in violation of release conditions; a recorded jail call suggesting his girlfriend Natalie Fleming take blame led to an amended tampering charge.
- The State offered a plea deal: plead guilty to tampering (for the Fleming call) in exchange for dismissal/not pursuing other charges and recommendation of a 10-year sentence with 8 suspended; agreement written and signed, with plea form stating maximum 10 years/$50,000 and marking enhancement line inapplicable.
- After the plea, LaTray again recanted; Hendrickson obtained new counsel and moved to withdraw his guilty plea, asserting (1) new evidence (LaTray’s latest recantation) and (2) that prior counsel erroneously told him he was PFO-eligible (facing mandatory 5–100 years) and that this advice induced the plea.
- The District Court denied withdrawal, finding the plea colloquy and written plea advised the correct maximum, that counsel’s mistaken PFO advice (if given) was an inaccurate prediction rather than gross mischaracterization, and that Hendrickson failed to show he would not have pleaded but for counsel’s advice. This Court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Hendrickson's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hendrickson may withdraw his guilty plea for good cause because counsel misinformed him about PFO eligibility | Smith told Hendrickson he faced mandatory PFO enhancement (5–100 yrs); that misinformation induced the plea, so plea involuntary | Plea was voluntary: written plea and court colloquy correctly advised maximum; counsel’s misstatement was an inaccurate prediction and Hendrickson failed to prove but-for causation | Denied — no good cause; plea voluntary and knowing |
| Whether counsel’s alleged erroneous advice about PFO renders plea involuntary under Brady/Strickland standards | Misrepresentation as to direct consequences (PFO) undermined voluntariness; satisfies Strickland prejudice prong | Defendant bears burden to show objective proof; plea colloquy and plea form showed correct max; benefit of plea and risk of greater exposure support voluntariness | Court: even if advice was incorrect, Hendrickson did not carry burden to show he would not have pleaded |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742 (1970) (plea must be made with awareness of direct consequences; voluntariness standard)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Brinson, 210 P.3d 164 (Mont. 2009) (requirement that subjective impressions at plea must be supported by objective record proof)
- State v. Warclub, 114 P.3d 254 (Mont. 2005) (motion-to-withdraw plea standards and review of trial court findings)
- State v. Lone Elk, 108 P.3d 500 (Mont. 2005) (discussion of counsel advice vs. court colloquy in assessing voluntariness)