State v. T. Cheetham Sr., 373 P.3d 45

In 2014 Timothy Cheetham Sr. was charged with sexual intercourse without consent, sexual assault, and sexual abuse of children for alleged acts in 2004 against a child (N.S.).
N.S. testified at trial about inappropriate touching, forced viewing of porn, and one episode of forced intercourse; her disclosure history included delayed memory and four interviews across years.
Defense counsel Steven Scott cross-examined inconsistencies and called an expert; the jury convicted Cheetham on all three counts.
Defense later discovered a 2006 forensic medical report (initially not produced) that described mostly normal findings but noted findings that could be consistent with prior injury; Cheetham argued Scott failed to obtain or use that report.
On the day of sentencing Cheetham sent a letter alleging ineffective assistance and requested substitute counsel; the district court questioned counsel and defendant, found no total breakdown in communication, declined to substitute counsel, and proceeded to sentence.
On appeal Cheetham argued the court’s inquiry into his request for substitute counsel was inadequate and that he received ineffective assistance; the Court affirmed, declining to resolve the ineffectiveness claim on direct appeal because the record was insufficient.

Issue	Cheetham's Argument	State's Argument	Held
1. Whether the district court abused discretion by not conducting an adequate inquiry into request for substitute counsel	Court should have inquired into substance of complaints (counsel’s failure to use medical report); claim was seemingly substantial	Court did adequate inquiry; disagreement was tactical, not a total breakdown; no need for substitution	No abuse of discretion — inquiry was adequate and complaints were tactical differences not warranting substitution
2. Whether Cheetham was denied effective assistance of counsel	Scott failed to identify, investigate, and introduce the 2006 medical report; its admission could have created reasonable doubt	Record does not reveal why Scott acted as he did; claim is not record‑based and better suited to postconviction review	Ineffective‑assistance claim dismissed without prejudice to postconviction relief (record insufficient for direct review)

State v. Schowengerdt, 379 Mont. 182 (Mont. 2015) (district court must conduct adequate inquiry into substitution request)
State v. Dethman, 358 Mont. 384 (Mont. 2010) (deference to counsel’s tactical decisions; substitution not required absent breakdown)
State v. Gallagher, 288 Mont. 180 (Mont. 1998) (initial inquiry into defendant’s factual complaints required)
State v. MacGregor, 372 Mont. 142 (Mont. 2013) (court’s inquiry adequacy reviewed, not merits of ineffectiveness)
State v. Edwards, 361 Mont. 478 (Mont. 2011) (standard for substitution motions)
State v. Novak, 329 Mont. 309 (Mont. 2005) (record‑based ineffective assistance claims reviewable on direct appeal)
State v. Clary, 364 Mont. 53 (Mont. 2012) (deference to counsel and review standards for ineffective assistance)
In re Gillham, 216 Mont. 279 (Mont. 1985) (procedure for permitting counsel to disclose confidences on ineffective‑assistance claims)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (performance and prejudice standard for ineffective assistance)
Cronic v. United States, 466 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1984) (circumstances where prejudice is presumed)
Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80 (U.S. 1976) (counsel’s ability to communicate with defendant during critical stages)
Daniels v. Woodford, 428 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2005) (irreconcilable conflict may constitute constructive denial of counsel)