State v. J. Martin ( 2020 )

04/07/2020
DA 17-0496
Case Number: DA 17-0496
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2020 MT 84N
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
JASON BRYAN MARTIN,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Hill, Cause No. DC-2017-036
Honorable Daniel A. Boucher, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Nick K. Brooke, Smith & Stephens, P.C., Missoula, Montana
For Appellee:
Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Roy Brown, Assistant
Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Karen Alley, Hill County Attorney, Havre, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: February 19, 2020
Decided: April 7, 2020
Filed:
oe,,6tA- -if
__________________________________________
Clerk
Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), 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 Jason Bryan Martin (“Martin”) appeals from an order of the Twelfth Judicial
District Court, Hill County, denying consideration of Martin’s pro se inmate grievance
document on the grounds that it was untimely, filed while represented by counsel, and
procedurally barred since it raised issues not appealed from the Hill County Justice Court.
Martin argues that the Justice Court erred when it ruled that the inmate grievance
document could not be admitted without Martin’s testimony and that the District Court
erred in refusing to consider Martin’s pro se appeal of the Justice Court’s ruling. We
affirm.
¶3 On December 3, 2016, Martin was arrested for disorderly conduct and trespass.
During booking at the detention center, Martin refused to comply with standard booking
procedures. The detention officer requested several times that Martin face the wall while
the officer conducted a weapons pat down; Martin refused and continued to face the
officer. After the fifth request, the officer pinned Martin against the wall to get him to
turn around. Martin then spat in the detention officer’s eyes. Martin was charged with
assault with bodily fluids, a misdemeanor.
2
¶4 Prior to the jury trial on the assault charge, the Justice Court held a hearing and
discussed the State’s motion in limine to preclude Martin from introducing his inmate
grievance at trial without foundation. Martin’s inmate grievance contained allegations
that the detention officer had “fabricated a fictitious statement” about Martin spitting on
him and alleged excessive force by the detention officer. Martin’s counsel advised the
Justice Court that it would be “very prejudicial to his case” for Martin to testify as to the
contents of the grievance since it would open the door for Martin’s propensity for truth to
be challenged by the State based on his criminal record, which included federal theft and
fraud convictions. The Justice Court issued pretrial rulings that excluded Martin’s bad
acts and that his testimony laying foundation for his grievance would have allowed the
State to impeach him as a witness.
¶5 At trial, counsel attempted to elicit the contents of Martin’s grievance through Hill
County Detention Center administrator Victoria Olson (“Olson”). The Justice Court
questioned its relevance, noting that no affirmative defenses were offered in the
grievance document. Counsel asserted that it was relevant to the issue of whether Olson
had followed proper jail procedure for handling the incident. The State countered that the
grievance was not relevant, was hearsay, and that Olson could not testify to personal
knowledge of the contents of the grievance because she was not present during the
incident between Martin and the detention officer. The State also argued that Olson’s
general testimony about the existence of a grievance and the jail’s processes would
confuse the jury and be unduly prejudicial to the State, because whether Olson followed
proper jail procedure for handling the grievance had no relevance to whether Martin spit
3
on the detention officer. The Justice Court allowed counsel to ask Olson “if a grievance
was filed” and ask about the process for handling grievances. During trial, counsel
limited questions for Olson to procedures for handling, investigating, and answering
inmate grievances.
¶6 On March 21, 2017, a jury found Martin guilty of misdemeanor assault with
bodily fluids under § 45-5-214, MCA. Martin was then sentenced and ordered to pay
trial costs and administrative fees totaling $395.46, notwithstanding the Justice Court’s
finding that Martin was unable to pay. On March 31, 2017, counsel timely filed a notice
of appeal to the District Court.
¶7 On May 2, 2017, the District Court set a briefing schedule with Martin’s opening
brief due May 18, 2017. On May 3, 2017, counsel informed Martin of the briefing
timeline. On May 11, 2017, counsel informed Martin that the scope of her appeal would
only pertain to trial costs, and if Martin wanted to raise the issue surrounding the
admission of his grievance document, he would have to proceed pro se or hire new
counsel.1 Counsel explained to Martin that she would not raise the grievance
admissibility issue since she had ethical obligations to only appeal non-frivolous matters
grounded in law. Counsel timely filed the opening brief on the due date of May 18, 2017.
Martin then filed his pro se document on May 25, 2017, arguing that the Justice Court
erred in not admitting his grievance at trial. The State responded, conceding the trial
costs issue and taking no position on Martin’s pro se document. The Office of Public
1
Counsel testified at the subsequent hearing regarding Martin’s submission of a pro se brief.
4
Defender filed a motion to rescind counsel’s appointment, explaining that it was unclear
if Martin wanted to proceed pro se or hire new counsel.
¶8 On June 5, 2017, the District Court held a status hearing. The State urged the
District Court to disregard Martin’s document because it was untimely filed and that the
scope of the appeal was limited to the issue of trial costs, which it had already conceded.
The District Court questioned Martin as to why he did not timely file his pro se brief
raising new issues. Martin responded, admitting that counsel had informed him of the
deadline but that he wanted to wait to draft his own brief until counsel submitted her
brief. The hearing also included testimony by counsel that she believed appealing the
Justice Court’s admissibility ruling of the grievance document was frivolous since the
issue was not grounded in law.
¶9 On June 22, 2017, the District Court struck the trial costs requirement and
addressed Martin’s pro se brief in its ruling. The District Court held that Martin’s pro se
addendum to his appellate brief raising evidentiary issues would “not be considered on
appeal as it raises issues not appealed from the Justice Court, lacks support, was filed
while he was represented by counsel, and is untimely under Montana Code Annotated
§ 46-17-311(2).” Martin now appeals the District Court’s refusal to consider his pro se
appeal of the Justice Court’s ruling. Martin also argues that the Justice Court committed
plain error by failing to admit his inmate grievance document. Lastly, Martin argues that
counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel.
5
¶10 On appeal from the district court’s review of a justice court’s decision, this Court
examines the record independently2 to determine whether the justice court’s findings of
fact meet the clearly erroneous standard, whether its discretionary rulings, including
decisions on the admissibility of evidence, meet the abuse of discretion standard, and
whether its legal conclusions were correct. State v. Meyer, 2017 MT 124, ¶¶ 10-11, 387
Mont. 422, 396 P.3d 1265. We review a district court’s decisions on the admissibility of
evidence for an abuse of discretion and its decisions regarding issues of law for
correctness. Meyer, ¶ 12. Regarding ineffective assistance of counsel claims, our review
is de novo. State v. LaField, 2017 MT 312, ¶ 11, 390 Mont. 1, 407 P.3d 682.
¶11 The admissibility of Martin’s inmate grievance document in Justice Court and his
pro se brief in District Court are each procedurally barred. As to the first issue, Martin
argues, for the first time on appeal, that the business records exception under M. R. Evid.
803(6) applies for admitting the grievance. It is a well-established rule that this Court
will not address an issue raised for the first time on appeal, nor may a party raise new
arguments or change its legal theory on appeal. State v. Martinez, 2003 MT 65, ¶ 17, 314
Mont. 434, 67 P. 3d 207.
¶12 Martin argues that the District Court erred when it failed to grant him wide latitude
as a pro se litigant pursuing his grievance claim. Rule 14 of the Montana Uniform
Municipal Court Rules of Appeal to the District Court provides that requests for
extensions for filing a brief must be made “within the time originally prescribed or within
2
The Justice Court in this case was a court of record; accordingly, on appeal the District
Court functioned as the intermediate appellate court and did not conduct a new trial.
6
an extension previously granted” and that failure to do so results in the appeal being
“deemed without merit . . . .” Mont. Unif. Muni. Ct. Rules of Appeal to the Dist. Ct.
Rule 14(a), (c). Martin was aware of the May 18, 2017 deadline for brief filing but failed
to request an extension and filed his pro se addendum a week late on May 25, 2017.3 A
district court may refuse to accept pro se motions from defendants who are adequately
represented by counsel. State v. Samples, 2005 MT 210, ¶ 15, 328 Mont. 242, 119 P.3d
1191.
¶13 Finally, Martin argues that counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel.
Martin asserts that counsel was ineffective when she refused to raise the inmate grievance
issue in her appeal to the District Court because it had legal merit. Martin fails to meet
his burden of overcoming the “strong presumption that counsel rendered adequate
assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional
judgment.” Stevens v. State, 2007 MT 137, ¶ 14, 337 Mont. 400, 162 P.3d 82.
¶14 Martin was adequately represented by counsel. The record demonstrates that
counsel exercised reasonable professional judgment in representing Martin, particularly
by recognizing that the grievance document was hearsay without an exception and that
any testimony by Martin in light of his federal fraud and theft convictions posed a severe
risk to his credibility being impeached. Counsel also exercised reasonable professional
judgment by limiting the scope of her appeal to nonfrivolous matters, by adequately
communicating to her client that she was limiting the scope of her representation to trial
3
The District Court afforded Martin wide latitude by holding a status hearing on Martin’s
concerns. After considering the arguments made by Martin in his pro se brief, the District Court
found them to be without merit.
7
costs, and by informing Martin that if he wanted to appeal the grievance issue he would
need to seek new counsel or appeal the matter pro se.
¶15 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of
our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. This appeal
presents no constitutional issues, no issues of first impression, and does not establish new
precedent or modify existing precedent.
¶16 Affirmed.
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
We Concur:
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ JIM RICE
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON
8