W. Larson Jr. v. State
2016 MT 259N
| Mont. | 2016Background
- Walter M. Larson, Jr. was convicted in 2013 of deliberate homicide and evidence tampering; this Court affirmed his convictions on direct appeal.
- In October 2015 Larson, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel and attached an affidavit restating those claims.
- The Seventh Judicial District Court dismissed the PCR without a hearing, concluding the petition and record conclusively showed Larson was not entitled to relief and that the petition failed to meet statutory pleading requirements.
- Larson appealed, arguing the district court erred by (1) not holding an evidentiary hearing and (2) not appointing counsel for the post-conviction proceeding.
- The Supreme Court reviewed whether the dismissal without a hearing was appropriate and whether appointment of counsel was required under the circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by dismissing PCR without evidentiary hearing | Larson argued his affidavit and petition warranted a hearing on ineffective assistance claims | State argued the petition and record conclusively showed no relief was warranted and the petition failed statutory pleading thresholds | Court affirmed dismissal; no abuse of discretion in denying a hearing because petition lacked required factual support and attachments |
| Whether court erred by not appointing counsel for PCR | Larson argued he needed counsel for the post-conviction process | State argued appointment is discretionary post-appeal and is required only if a hearing is needed or interests of justice require it | Court held appointment not required where no hearing was necessary and petition failed to state a claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Beach v. State, 353 Mont. 411, 220 P.3d 667 (2009) (standards for reviewing PCR denials and sufficiency of allegations)
- Marble v. State, 380 Mont. 366, 355 P.3d 742 (2015) (court may dismiss PCR without response or hearing when record conclusively shows no relief)
- Greenup v. Russell, 300 Mont. 136, 3 P.3d 124 (2000) (pro se litigants afforded latitude but must follow procedural rules)
- State v. Larson, 381 Mont. 94, 356 P.3d 488 (2015) (direct-appeal opinion affirming Larson's convictions)