State v. Schowengerdt
| Decision Date | 16 January 2018 |
| Docket Number | DA 15-0677 |
| Citation | 2018 MT 7,390 Mont. 123,409 P.3d 38 |
| Parties | STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Dennis Leo SCHOWENGERDT, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
For Appellant: Chad Wright, Appellant Defender, Koan Mercer, Assistant Appellant Defender, Helena, Montana
For Appellee: Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Mardell Ployhar, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana, Lewis K. Smith, Powell County Attorney, Deer Lodge, Montana
¶ 1 This Court heard an initial appeal by Dennis Schowengerdt ("Schowengerdt"), after which we remanded to the Third Judicial District Court, Powell County, to further inquire into whether Schowengerdt's complaints regarding appointed counsel were seemingly substantial and necessitated a hearing to determine the validity of Schowengerdt's allegations and the need for substitution of counsel. The District Court conducted a hearing per our instructions and again denied Schowengerdt's request for substitution of counsel. Schowengerdt appeals this Order.
¶ 2 We address the following issues:
¶ 3 We affirm.
¶ 4 The initial facts of the case are undisputed: On December 8, 2012, Schowengerdt killed his wife, Tina Schowengerdt, by repeatedly stabbing her in their home near Deer Lodge. The following morning, Schowengerdt drove to the police station in Deer Lodge and, in a recorded statement, told officers that last night he, On January 2, 2013, Steven Scott ("Scott") of the Office of the State Public Defender (OPD) was assigned as counsel for Schowengerdt. Scott commenced representation and filed several pleadings on behalf of his client.
¶ 5 On January 17, 2013, Scott filed a Notice that Schowengerdt might assert a defense of justifiable use of force. On April 2, 2013, immediately prior to a hearing on his motion to change venue, Schowengerdt decided to plead guilty to deliberate homicide.
Schowengerdt signed an Acknowledgment of Waiver of Rights by Plea of Guilty and admitted that he "knowingly stabbed Tina Schowengerdt with a knife causing her death ... [on] 12/08/12." The District Court proceeded through a detailed colloquy, during which Schowengerdt indicated that his plea was knowing and voluntary, that he was satisfied with Scott's services, and that he felt he could not "handle" a trial. The District Court accepted the guilty plea.
¶ 6 On June 12, 2013, Schowengerdt sent a letter to the District Court requesting new counsel. In the letter, he wrote: "I am Requesting a Withdraw [sic] as My Attorney at this time Mr Steve Scott; I AM Requesting For proper Reputation [sic] in My case." Two days later, Scott filed a motion to withdraw Schowengerdt's guilty plea, explaining in the supporting brief: Scott added that he felt it was his "duty as a licensed attorney in Montana to point out to the Court there is not any case law in Montana to support Mr. Schowengerdt's position as to the withdraw[al] of plea." After reviewing Schowengerdt's letter, the District Court ordered Scott to submit a memorandum explaining his position regarding continued representation of Schowengerdt. Scott responded, stating that he had "no problem with continuing to represent [Schowengerdt]," and that he did not feel there had been a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship.
¶ 7 On July 2, 2013, the District Court held a hearing to address Schowengerdt's letter requesting a change in representation. As Schowengerdt was about to explain his dissatisfaction with his assigned counsel, the District Court interrupted him and Schowengerdt was not provided the chance to speak to the issue. Instead, the District Court directed Schowengerdt to follow the OPD's process for obtaining substitute counsel.
¶ 8 On August 27, 2013, the District Court held a hearing on Schowengerdt's Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea, at which the District Court inquired whether the representation issue had been resolved. Scott explained that OPD denied Schowengerdt's request for new counsel and that Schowengerdt had not appealed the decision pursuant to OPD's administrative policies. The District Court deemed the representation matter resolved and moved on to Schowengerdt's Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea.
¶ 9 Regarding the Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea, Scott reiterated what he had previously submitted to the District Court, stating:
"[Schowengerdt] did not have a basis to give me as to why he felt his plea should be withdrawn...." The District Court invited Schowengerdt to speak, and Schowengerdt stated that he felt unprepared to address his withdrawal of plea but stated, The District Court then denied the Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea and concluded that Schowengerdt had not "in any way asserted his plea of guilty was involuntary and there is no basis in the record to conclude [his] guilty plea was involuntary." The District Court denied Schowengerdt's motion to withdraw his guilty plea and sentenced him to life in the Montana State Prison.
¶ 10 Schowengerdt appealed, arguing that Scott failed to provide effective assistance of counsel and that the District Court failed to adequately inquire into Schowengerdt's complaints of ineffective assistance. We agreed that the District Court failed to adequately inquire into Schowengerdt's complaints regarding his counsel which necessitated a remand for further proceedings on this issue.
State v. Schowengerdt , 2015 MT 133, ¶ 21, 379 Mont. 182, 348 P.3d 664. We held:
Upon remand, the District Court must adequately inquire into Schowengerdt's complaints about his assigned counsel to determine whether his complaints are seemingly substantial and necessitate a hearing to determine the validity of Schowengerdt's allegations and the need for substitution of counsel. If the court determines that new counsel is warranted, then, in accordance with the relief sought by Schowengerdt, he will have "the opportunity to present his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to the district court" with new counsel. We express no opinion on the merits of Schowengerdt's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. If, on the other hand, the court determines that Schowengerdt has not presented seemingly substantial complaints about his counsel, or is otherwise not entitled to new counsel, then the judgment and sentence are affirmed, subject to Schowengerdt's right to appeal the District Court's determinations made on remand, and his preserved issue concerning ineffective assistance of counsel.
¶ 11 On August 7, 2015, the District Court held a proceeding to inquire into Schowengerdt's complaints about Scott's representation to determine whether the complaints were seemingly substantial such that they warranted a hearing. The District Court appointed new counsel to Schowengerdt for this proceeding and heard from both Schowengerdt and Scott. Schowengerdt described in detail his dissatisfaction with Scott's representation. Schowengerdt perceived a lack of loyalty by Scott towards Schowengerdt as his client; Schowengerdt expressed concerns that Scott had not investigated the case properly; and Schowengerdt voiced frustration stemming from a lack of comprehension of the proceedings and the scope of Scott's representation. After hearing from Schowengerdt, the District Court found his complaints to be "substantial," such that they merited further explanation and consideration.
¶ 12 Next, Schowengerdt's new counsel succinctly summarized his client's complaints to the District Court: (1) Schowengerdt had trouble dealing with what had happened—he wanted, but was not able, to speak with a doctor or counselor; (2) Schowengerdt did not have a meaningful attorney-client relationship—Schowengerdt felt that Scott was working against him and not giving him the time and attention he needed to understand and be prepared for the proceedings; (3) Schowengerdt asked Scott to do things he did not do—Scott did not investigate or follow up on certain suggestions such as looking into the victim's phone and laptop records or medication she might have been taking; and (4) Schowengerdt did not understand all the proceedings—alleging a lack of communication and comprehension due to Scott's shortcomings and Schowengerdt's hearing impairment.
¶ 13 The District Court then provided Scott with an opportunity to respond to Schowengerdt's allegations. Scott, referencing his contemporaneous notes throughout the proceeding, responded that he felt he could successfully communicate with Schowengerdt throughout the representation. Scott vehemently denied any knowledge of, contact with, or collaboration with Schowengerdt's daughter or other community members, and Scott explained each of his choices to not pursue certain avenues or strategies that Schowengerdt had suggested. Scott also described how he followed up with most of Schowengerdt's suggestions and requests but found certain investigations unproductive or irrelevant in light of the evidence and prior proceedings.
¶ 14 At the conclusion of this proceeding, the District Court asked all parties whether they were satisfied with the proceeding. Nobody voiced an objection. On September 15, 2015, the District Court issued an order again denying Schowengerdt's request for substitution of counsel. Schowengerdt appeals this Order.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Daniels
...and strategy based on reasonable professional judgment and thorough investigation should be left to counsel’s discretion. State v. Schowengerdt , 2018 MT 7, ¶ 31, 390 Mont. 123, 409 P.3d 38 (citing Whitlow , ¶¶ 18-19 ). ¶58 The two prongs of the Strickland test need not be addressed in the ......
-
State v. Khongwiset
...and the court's analysis of whether a defendant's claims are seemingly substantial, necessitating a further hearing. State v. Schowengerdt , 2018 MT 7, ¶ 16, 390 Mont. 123, 409 P.3d 38. We review de novo whether the court adhered to the applicable sentencing statute. State v. McMaster , 200......
-
State v. Jones
...prejudiced the defendant, in other words, that the errors ‘were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial ....’ " State v. Schowengerdt , 2018 MT 7, ¶ 31, 390 Mont. 123, 409 P.3d 38 (quoting Whitlow v. State , 2008 MT 140, ¶ 10, 343 Mont. 90, 183 P.3d 861 ). A defendant must sa......
-
State v. Witkowski
...that his cited supporting authority either conflicts with or otherwise undermines our holding and rationale in Gazda . Compare State v. Schowengerdt , 2018 MT 7, ¶¶ 10-14 and 25-26, 390 Mont. 123, 409 P.3d 38 (affirming denial of new counsel request due to acquiescent waiver of defendant an......