State v. Schowengerdt, DA 13–0777.
| Docket Nº | No. DA 13–0777. |
| Citation | 348 P.3d 664, 379 Mont. 182, 2015 MT 133 |
| Case Date | May 19, 2015 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Montana |
379 Mont. 182
348 P.3d 664
2015 MT 133
STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Dennis Leo SCHOWENGERDT, Defendant and Appellant.
No. DA 13–0777.
Supreme Court of Montana.
Submitted on Briefs April 1, 2015.
Decided May 19, 2015.
For Appellant: Wade Zolynski, Chief Appellate Defender; David Dennis ; Koan Mercer, Assistant Appellate Defenders; 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.
Opinion
Justice JIM RICE delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶ 1 Dennis Leo Schowengerdt (Schowengerdt) appeals from the judgment and sentence entered by the Third Judicial District Court, Powell County, following the entry of his guilty plea to the charge of deliberate homicide. Schowengerdt challenges the denial of his request for the appointment of new counsel and alleges his right to effective assistance of counsel was violated. We remand for further proceedings on a limited issue.
¶ 2 The parties raise the following issues on appeal:
1. Did the District Court adequately inquire into Schowengerdt's complaint that defense counsel had rendered ineffective assistance of counsel?
2. Did Schowengerdt receive ineffective assistance of counsel?
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶ 3 On December 10, 2012, the State filed an information charging Schowengerdt with one count of deliberate homicide. The State alleged by affidavit that on December 8, 2012, just before midnight, Schowengerdt repeatedly stabbed his wife, Tina Schowengerdt, resulting in her death. The affidavit further stated that, the following morning, Schowengerdt entered the Powell County Law Enforcement Center and provided a full confession.
¶ 4 On January 2, 2013, Steven Scott (Scott) of the Office of the State Public Defender (OPD) was assigned as counsel for Schowengerdt. On January 17, Scott filed a “Notice of Intention” in which he advised that Schowengerdt intended to plead not guilty and assert the affirmative defense of
justifiable use of force. However, on April 2, Schowengerdt agreed to plead guilty to deliberate homicide, without the benefit of a plea agreement. In a handwritten statement, Schowengerdt admitted killing his wife: “I knowingly stabbed Tina Schowengerdt with a knife causing her death. This occurred on 12/8/12.” During the ensuing change of plea hearing, Schowengerdt indicated that he was satisfied with the services of his attorney and was voluntarily entering his plea. During the plea colloquy, Schowengerdt stated he did not want to proceed to trial because “I can't handle it.” Schowengerdt admitted that he stabbed Tina with a knife knowing that it would cause her death. The District Court accepted Schowengerdt's guilty plea, and the matter was set for sentencing.
¶ 5 On June 12, Schowengerdt sent a handwritten letter to the District Court, seeking the appointment of new counsel. The letter stated as follows:
I am Requesting a Withdraw as My Attorney at this time Mr Steve Scott
I AM Requesting For proper Reputation in My case
Two days later, Scott filed a motion for withdrawal of Schowengerdt's guilty plea. In his supporting brief, Scott explained: “Mr. Schowengerdt, during a visit with his attorney, Mr. Scott, stated he wants to withdraw his plea of guilty and proceed onto trial in this case. Mr. Schowengerdt indicated he made a mistake when he entered into the plea and now wishes to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial.” Scott further added, “It is my 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 of plea.”
¶ 6 On June 17, the District Court ordered Scott to submit a memorandum explaining Scott's position regarding his continued representation of Schowengerdt and the “Public Defender's position with respect to providing Schowengerdt with new counsel.” Scott did so, stating that he had “no problem with continuing to represent” Schowengerdt and that he did not believe there had been a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship, and describing the process by which Schowengerdt could file a complaint with OPD.
¶ 7 On July 2, the District Court convened a hearing to address Schowengerdt's letter for change in representation. The court stated to Schowengerdt that it was unclear from his letter why he did not want Scott to be his attorney, after which the following colloquy occurred:
[Schowengerdt]: Can I explain it to you?
[Court]: Go ahead.
[Schowengerdt]: All right. Early on, back in December, might have been January, but it was early on—
[Court]: Well, Mr. Schowengerdt, let me stop you there. You're starting to tell a story. I'm going to remind you that you have a right to remain silent. The things you say in court can wind up to be to your prejudice in the future.
[Schowengerdt]: It seems like I've already spoke about everything that's got me here.
Thus, at the point Schowengerdt was going to explain his dissatisfaction with his assigned counsel, the court interrupted him and Schowengerdt was never provided another chance to speak to the issue. Instead of inquiring into Schowengerdt's objections, the court directed him to follow the OPD's process for obtaining substitute counsel:
[Scott]: Dennis, do you want a different attorney from the Public Defender's Office?
[Schowengerdt]: Yes.
[Court]: All right. If that's what you're driving at, you need to
communicate with the Public Defender's Office rather than me and tell them why you think you should have a different lawyer, and then they will tell me whether or not they'll give you one.
...
[Court]: If they do not give you a different lawyer, then you have—we're going to be looking at: Okay, am I going to let Mr. Scott off the hook in this case or not?
¶ 8 On August 27, the District Court conducted a hearing on Schowengerdt's motion to withdraw his plea. At the outset of the hearing, the court inquired whether the issue of Schowengerdt's representation had been
resolved. Scott explained that the OPD had denied...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Schowengerdt, DA 15-0677
...complaints regarding his counsel which necessitated a remand for further proceedings on this issue. 409 P.3d 43 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 as......
-
State v. Cheetham, DA 15–0156.
...that the District Court erred by failing to conduct an adequate inquiry into his complaints. Cheetham claims that State v. Schowengerdt, 2015 MT 133, 379 Mont. 182, 348 P.3d 664, is an “instructive similar case” and notes that Scott also served as trial counsel in that case. Cheetham assert......
-
State v. Johnson, DA 17-0195
...factual complaints together with counsel’s specific explanations addressing the complaints. 394 Mont. 258 State v. Schowengerdt , 2015 MT 133, ¶ 17, 379 Mont. 182, 348 P.3d 664 ; Dethman , ¶ 16 ; Gallagher I , ¶ 15 ; City of Billings v. Smith , 281 Mont. 133, 136-37, 932 P.2d 1058, 1060 (19......
-
State v. Aguado, DA 14-0487
..."fails to conduct ‘even a cursory inquiry’ " into the defendant's 387 Mont. 8allegations. Cheetham , ¶ 20 (quoting State v. Schowengerdt , 2015 MT 133, ¶ 17, 379 Mont. 182, 348 P.3d 664 ).¶ 24 We have explained that, to obtain substitution of counsel, the defendant bears the burden of provi......
-
State v. Schowengerdt, DA 15-0677
...complaints regarding his counsel which necessitated a remand for further proceedings on this issue. 409 P.3d 43 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 as......
-
State v. Cheetham, DA 15–0156.
...that the District Court erred by failing to conduct an adequate inquiry into his complaints. Cheetham claims that State v. Schowengerdt, 2015 MT 133, 379 Mont. 182, 348 P.3d 664, is an “instructive similar case” and notes that Scott also served as trial counsel in that case. Cheetham assert......
-
State v. Johnson, DA 17-0195
...factual complaints together with counsel’s specific explanations addressing the complaints. 394 Mont. 258 State v. Schowengerdt , 2015 MT 133, ¶ 17, 379 Mont. 182, 348 P.3d 664 ; Dethman , ¶ 16 ; Gallagher I , ¶ 15 ; City of Billings v. Smith , 281 Mont. 133, 136-37, 932 P.2d 1058, 1060 (19......
-
State v. Aguado, DA 14-0487
..."fails to conduct ‘even a cursory inquiry’ " into the defendant's 387 Mont. 8allegations. Cheetham , ¶ 20 (quoting State v. Schowengerdt , 2015 MT 133, ¶ 17, 379 Mont. 182, 348 P.3d 664 ).¶ 24 We have explained that, to obtain substitution of counsel, the defendant bears the burden of provi......