Z. Shaffer v. State
2017 MT 213N
| Mont. | 2017Background
- In 2013 a jury convicted Zachary G. Shaffer of felony assault on a police officer; in a separate case he pleaded nolo contendere to intimidation.
- Shaffer appealed raising ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC); this Court affirmed his convictions.
- In 2015 Shaffer filed a petition for postconviction relief (PCR) alleging procedural error; the District Court denied it for lack of factual support and this Court affirmed.
- In August 2016 Shaffer filed a second PCR petition raising no new grounds that could not have been raised earlier.
- The District Court dismissed the second petition as not permitted under Montana law; Shaffer appealed.
- The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the second petition violated statutory limits on successive PCR petitions and that no new, previously unavailable grounds were presented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the second PCR petition was permissible | Shaffer sought relief via a second PCR petition (arguing procedural error) | State argued successive petitions are barred unless they raise grounds that could not reasonably have been raised earlier | Court held the second petition was not permitted and properly dismissed |
| Whether IAC claims can be raised in a second PCR | Shaffer attempted to reassert issues related to counsel performance | State relied on statute barring IAC claims in successive petitions | Court held IAC claims cannot be raised in a second PCR |
| Whether claims that could have been raised on direct appeal are barred in PCR | Shaffer advanced issues previously or that could have been raised on direct appeal | State argued those claims are not available in PCR | Court held PCR is unavailable for claims that could have been raised on direct appeal |
| Whether District Court erred in finding insufficient factual support | Shaffer challenged prior denials and factual sufficiency | State maintained petitioner failed to plead required factual support | Court held the District Court's conclusions were correct and findings not erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitlow v. State, 343 Mont. 90, 183 P.3d 861 (standard of review for PCR denials)
- Ellenburg v. Chase, 320 Mont. 315, 87 P.3d 473 (pleading requirements for postconviction petitions)
- Lacey v. State, 386 Mont. 204, 389 P.3d 233 (PCR unavailable for issues that could have been raised on direct appeal)
- Gollehon v. State, 296 Mont. 6, 986 P.2d 395 (same principle regarding direct-appeal-bar for PCR)