State v. J. Terronez
2017 MT 296
| Mont. | 2017Background
- Defendant Jason Terronez was charged with digital sexual penetration of a five‑year‑old after injuries and statements by the child and a medical exam. Trial began in late September 2015; a jury was empaneled and the State had presented much of its case.
- The trial atmosphere became tense: confrontations between the victim's family (the Weltons) and others, alleged threats, a concrete block thrown through defense counsel Foster’s car windshield, security measures, and concerns for safety were documented by the court.
- During trial, defense counsel (Foster) initially indicated he would call a key defense witness (A.T.) but later agreed to a stipulation that A.T. would not testify; other disputed defense decisions and pretrial motions (e.g., medical records production) were also raised.
- While the trial was paused, the parties reached a late plea agreement: Terronez pleaded guilty to lesser included felony sexual assault; change‑of‑plea occurred at night; Foster returned to his hotel and subsequently died by suicide the next morning.
- New counsel (Sherwood) later moved to withdraw the guilty plea within one year under § 46‑16‑105(2), MCA, arguing plea involuntariness and ineffective assistance of counsel; the district court granted withdrawal without an evidentiary hearing, finding good cause based on counsel’s ineffective assistance and a pervasive atmosphere of fear impacting the proceedings.
- The State appealed, arguing it lacked authority to appeal and contending the district court erred in finding good cause (and should have held an evidentiary hearing).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Terronez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether the State is authorized to appeal the order allowing plea withdrawal | § 46‑20‑103(2) does not list this order; appeal not authorized | The plea withdrawal effectively granted a new trial, fitting § 46‑20‑103(2)(c) | Court: State may appeal because withdrawal at that late trial stage had the substantive effect of granting a new trial |
| 2) Whether the district court erred in finding "good cause" to permit plea withdrawal (including claims of ineffective assistance and lack of hearing) | Court relied on hearsay/affidavits and should have held an evidentiary hearing; Foster’s actions had reasonable explanations; no ineffective assistance proven | Plea involuntary due to counsel’s deficient performance and the threatening atmosphere; good cause established | Court: Affirmed. No abuse of discretion in denying hearing under facts; even if Strickland claim was debatable, alternate basis — pervasive threats/fear that affected counsel and voluntariness — supported withdrawal |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (established two‑prong ineffective assistance standard)
- Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (plea voluntariness standard re: pleas induced by threats, misrepresentations, or improper promises)
- State v. Prindle, 370 Mont. 478, 304 P.3d 712 (mixed question review; voluntariness standard applied to pleas)
- State v. Warclub, 327 Mont. 352, 114 P.3d 254 (review standard for factual findings and plea withdrawal analysis)
- State v. McFarlane, 341 Mont. 166, 176 P.3d 1057 (application of Strickland in plea context)