Roedel v. State

May 18 2010
DA 09-0614
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2010 MT 109N
LAWRENCE ROEDEL,
Petitioner and Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MONTANA,
Respondent and Appellee.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District,
In and For the County of Flathead, Cause No. DV 08-1313(B)
Honorable Katherine R. Curtis, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Larry Roedel, (self-represented litigant); Shelby, Montana
For Appellee:
Hon. Steve Bullock, Montana Attorney General; John Paulson,
Assistant Attorney General; Helena, Montana
Edward J. Corrigan, Flathead County Attorney; Kalispell, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: April 21, 2010
Decided: May 18, 2010
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice W. William Leaphart delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, as amended in 2006, the following memorandum decision shall not be
cited as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme
Court, and its case title, Supreme Court 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 Lawrence Roedel appeals the order of the District Court denying his petition for
postconviction relief. In the underlying case, a Flathead County jury convicted Roedel of
deliberate homicide for shooting his wife. We affirmed the conviction in State v. Roedel,
2007 MT 291, 339 Mont. 489, 171 P.3d 694.
¶3 Roedel petitioned for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of
counsel, as well as misconduct by police and prosecutors. The District Court denied
Roedel’s petition, reasoning that it was not only technically defective, but also that it
lacked substantive merit. On appeal Roedel repeats his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel
and prosecutorial-misconduct arguments. Summarizing his appeal, Roedel insists, “The
State has no evidence not born out of fabrication and perjured testimony.”
¶4 We review a denial of postconviction relief to determine whether the district
court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous and whether its conclusions of law are
correct. Robinson v. State, 2010 MT 51, ¶ 10, 355 Mont. 326, ___ P.3d ___. We review
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims de novo. Id.2
¶5 We have decided to dispose of this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(i) of
our 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2006, which provides for
memorandum opinions. It is manifest on the record before us that the District Court’s
factual findings were supported by sufficient evidence and its legal conclusions supported
by settled law. We therefore affirm.
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
We concur:
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
3