Potter v. State , 2011 MT 206N ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                            August 23 2011
    DA 11-0012
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
    
    2011 MT 206N
    ALLEN POTTER,
    Petitioner and Appellant,
    v.
    STATE OF MONTANA,
    Respondent and Appellee.
    APPEAL FROM:          District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,
    In and For the County of Missoula, Cause No. DV 09-1426
    Honorable John W. Larson, Presiding Judge
    COUNSEL OF RECORD:
    For Appellant:
    Allen J. Potter (self-represented litigant), Shelby, Montana
    For Appellee:
    Steve Bullock, Montana Attorney General; Jonathan M. Krauss,
    Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
    Fred R. Van Valkenburg, Missoula County Attorney; Kirsten Pabst
    LaCroix, Deputy County Attorney, Missoula, Montana
    Submitted on Briefs: August 3, 2011
    Decided: August 23, 2011
    Filed:
    __________________________________________
    Clerk
    Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivered the Opinion of the Court.
    ¶1     Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court Internal
    Operating Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and
    does not serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included
    in this Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and
    Montana Reports.
    ¶2     Allen Potter filed a petition for postconviction relief and the District Court ordered
    a response from the State, which moved to dismiss. After Potter responded to the State’s
    motion, the District Court dismissed Potter’s petition without hearing. Potter appeals
    from the District Court’s Opinion and Order, filed December 21, 2010, dismissing his
    petition for postconviction relief. We affirm.
    ¶3     This Court reviews a petition for postconviction relief to determine whether the
    district court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous and whether its conclusions of law
    are correct. State v. Hanson, 
    1999 MT 226
    , ¶ 9, 
    296 Mont. 82
    , 
    988 P.2d 299
    . The
    petitioner has the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the facts justify
    relief. State v. Godfrey, 
    2009 MT 60
    , ¶ 13, 
    349 Mont. 335
    , 
    203 P.3d 834
    . Claims of
    ineffective assistance of counsel must be grounded upon facts and not merely conclusory
    allegations. State v. Finley, 
    2002 MT 288
    , ¶ 9, 
    312 Mont. 493
    , 
    59 P.3d 1132
    . A district
    court may dismiss a petition for postconviction relief as a matter of law for failure to state
    a claim, § 46-21-201(1)(a), MCA, and this Court reviews the decision to dismiss without
    2
    a hearing for abuse of discretion. Herman v. State, 
    2006 MT 7
    , ¶ 13, 
    330 Mont. 267
    , 
    127 P.3d 422
    .
    ¶4     We have reviewed Potter’s contentions that his trial attorney provided ineffective
    assistance of counsel and concur with the District Court’s conclusion that Potter failed to
    demonstrate that his attorney’s performance was deficient, or that his attorney’s
    performance prejudiced the defense. Potter contends that his attorney failed to pursue
    evidence which would have caused the jury to determine that his victim did not suffer
    serious bodily injury sufficient to support a conviction for aggravated assault. See §§ 45-
    5-202 and 45-2-101(66), MCA. Potter’s victim was subjected to a vicious and prolonged
    beating that left her hospitalized with multiple injuries. State v. Potter, 
    2008 MT 381
    , ¶¶
    8-9, 31-34, 
    347 Mont. 38
    , 
    197 P.3d 471
    .
    ¶5     The District Court considered each of Potter’s allegations that he was entitled to
    postconviction relief because his counsel was ineffective. The District Court “determined
    that all of [Potter’s] claims fail to state a claim for relief, and should be dismissed
    because they are either speculative, not founded in fact, or not supported by the record
    before the Court.”
    ¶6     We agree with the District Court that Potter failed to meet his burden to
    demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that his attorney was ineffective, or that
    any of the attorney’s acts or omissions would have resulted in a different outcome. The
    issues are clearly controlled by settled Montana law, and the District Court’s decision to
    dismiss the petition was not clearly erroneous and was not an abuse of discretion.
    3
    ¶7   Affirmed.
    /S/ MIKE McGRATH
    We concur:
    /S/ PATRICIA COTTER
    /S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
    /S/ BRIAN MORRIS
    /S/ JAMES C. NELSON
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-0012

Citation Numbers: 2011 MT 206N

Filed Date: 8/23/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014