State v. Schowengerdt, 2015 MT 133

Defendant Dennis Schowengerdt was charged with deliberate homicide after confessing to stabbing his wife; he pleaded guilty without a plea agreement and was sentenced to life imprisonment.
After the plea but before sentencing, Schowengerdt sent a handwritten letter to the district court requesting new counsel (substitute the assigned OPD attorney, Steven Scott).
OPD denied Schowengerdt’s request through its administrative process; Schowengerdt did not administratively appeal that denial.
At a July hearing the district court interrupted Schowengerdt as he began to explain his complaints about counsel and directed him to use OPD’s process; the court did not elicit the substance of his concerns.
At an August hearing the court treated the administrative denial as dispositive, conducted no further inquiry into Schowengerdt’s complaints about counsel, denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and imposed a life sentence.
Schowengerdt appealed, arguing the district court failed to conduct an adequate initial inquiry into his request for new counsel and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Schowengerdt)	Held
Whether the district court adequately inquired into defendant's request for substitute counsel	The court’s handling was adequate because Schowengerdt did not pursue OPD’s process by appeal and made only vague complaints; Edwards limits remand where complaints relate only to past trial ineffectiveness.	The court failed to allow him to state specifics; the court’s cursory interruption and deference to OPD deprived him of the required initial inquiry into potentially substantial complaints.	The Court held the district court erred: it failed to conduct an adequate inquiry and remanded for further proceedings on that limited issue.
Whether defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel	(State) Not addressed on merits because remand on inquiry issue may moot it.	(Schowengerdt) Contends counsel was ineffective and sought new counsel to pursue a motion to withdraw plea.	The Court declined to decide ineffective-assistance claim pending remand; resolution may be rendered moot by proceedings on remand.

State v. Happel, 240 P.3d 1016 (Mont. 2010) (district court must conduct an adequate initial inquiry into claims of ineffective assistance when substitution of counsel is requested)
State v. Gallagher, 955 P.2d 1371 (Mont. 1998) (same principle that inquiry must occur when defendant alleges counsel problems)
City of Billings v. Smith, 932 P.2d 1058 (Mont. 1997) (failure to make initial inquiry into complaints about counsel can be reversible error)
State v. Rose, 202 P.3d 749 (Mont. 2009) (adequate inquiry requires consideration of defendant’s factual complaints together with counsel’s specific explanations)
State v. Edwards, 260 P.3d 396 (Mont. 2011) (court error in inquiry may not require remand when complaints concern only past trial conduct and not future representation)
Weaver v. State, 917 P.2d 437 (Mont. 1996) (remand procedure and appellate preservation when initial inquiry is inadequate)
Halley v. State, 186 P.3d 859 (Mont. 2008) (standard of review for substitution of counsel)