Stock v. Montana, 318 P.3d 1053

Stock was convicted of felony incest involving his 14-year-old son and 6-year-old daughter and of evidence tampering; sentences concurrent at 50 years with 25 suspended for each incest count and 10 years for tampering.
Postconviction relief was filed by Stock alleging ineffective assistance of counsel by trial attorney Wright; District Court denied relief.
On appeal, Stock challenges defense performance for failing to consult a forensic computer examiner, object to electronic evidence, and object to a closing argument reference to DNA evidence.
The electronic evidence at issue consisted of summarized testimony about images and search terms found on Stock’s password-protected computer, not the lurid images themselves; DNA testimony at trial was disputed but did not conclusively prove guilt.
Montana Supreme Court applied Strickland v. Washington with a prejudice focus, found no sufficient showing of prejudice, and affirmed the District Court’s denial of postconviction relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was counsel deficient under Strickland, given the alleged trial counsel conduct?	Stock	Stock’s Wright deficient; ethical issues noted	No clear deficiency established (court addresses prejudice first)
Did Wright’s alleged deficiencies prejudice the outcome?	Stock	No reasonable probability of different outcome	Prejudice not shown; opinions supported by totality of evidence
Did ethical conflicts arise from counsel serving as advocate and witness in postconviction proceeding?	Stock	Not clearly resolved on record	Court cautions about conflicts; separates issues, but does not grant relief
Did the district court apply Strickland properly to determine deficiency and prejudice?	Stock	District Court correctly applied prejudice focus	Yes; no remand for deficiency finding necessary
Should the claim be remanded for further factual development due to Rule 3.7(a) considerations?	Stock	Not compelling on record	Not remanded; record insufficient to reverse

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two-prong deficient performance and prejudice test)
Whitlow v. State, 343 Mont. 90 (2008 MT) (discusses Strickland prongs and appellate briefing requirements)
State v. Kougl, 323 Mont. 6 (2004 MT) (implicates record development for IAC claims)
Miller v. State, 365 Mont. 264 (2012 MT) (de novo review of IAC with mixed questions of law and fact)
St. Germain v. State, 364 Mont. 494 (2012 MT) (defines prejudice standard in IAC context)
Robinson v. State, 356 Mont. 282 (2010 MT) (cites prejudice standards for appellate review)
Rogers v. State, 360 Mont. 334 (2011 MT) (prejudice analysis in direct appeal context)
U.S. v. Morrison, 449 U.S. 361 (1981) (cited for general principle of harmless error)