439 P.3d 931
Mont.2019Background
- Sawyer was charged with one count of deliberate homicide and two counts of attempted deliberate homicide after a November 3, 2015 shooting that killed Powers and wounded Smith and Drury; Sawyer was arrested Nov. 4, 2015.
- At trial the State played two post-arrest video interviews of Sawyer in which he described his criminal past; defense counsel did not object to admission.
- Defense theory at trial: justifiable use of force and extreme mental or emotional distress; Sawyer did not testify.
- The district court gave cautionary instructions limiting use of the interview evidence; defense counsel had earlier filed motions discussing strategic use of the interviews and possible cautionary instructions.
- Jury convicted Sawyer on all counts; Sawyer appealed asserting ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) based on trial counsel’s failure to object to prejudicial evidence of Sawyer’s criminal history.
- Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but allowed Sawyer to pursue the IAC claim in postconviction proceedings, ordering appointment of PCR counsel if requested.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sawyer's IAC claim can be resolved on direct appeal | Sawyer: counsel unreasonably failed to object to prejudicial, irrelevant criminal-history evidence in the interview videos; no plausible tactical justification, so claim is ripe on direct appeal | State: record does not explain counsel's omission; counsel had signaled intent to use the interviews, so omission may reflect trial strategy and needs fact development in PCR | Court: Affirmed conviction; IAC not resolved on direct appeal because record does not plainly explain counsel's omissions; claim may be raised in postconviction proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitlow v. State, 343 Mont. 90 (Mont. 2008) (IAC claims are mixed questions of law and fact reviewed de novo)
- State v. Johnston, 357 Mont. 46 (Mont. 2010) (right to effective assistance under federal and state constitutions)
- State v. Robinson, 350 Mont. 493 (Mont. 2009) (IAC on direct appeal requires record that explains counsel's omission)
- Soraich v. State, 311 Mont. 90 (Mont. 2002) (record must adequately document challenged counsel acts or omissions for direct-appeal IAC review)
- State v. Notti, 318 Mont. 146 (Mont. 2003) (affirming judgment without prejudice to postconviction IAC claims and ordering appointment of PCR counsel where appropriate)