State v. Fields , 2005 MT 25N ( 2005 )

No. 03-510
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2005 MT 25N
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
TIMOTHY FIELDS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Yellowstone, Cause No. DC 98-0925
The Honorable Russell C. Fagg, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Gary E. Wilcox, Attorney at Law, Billings, Montana
For Respondent:
Honorable Mike McGrath, Montana Attorney General; C. Mark Fowler,
Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana; Dennis Paxinos, Yellowstone
County Attorney, Ed Zink, Deputy County Attorney, Billings, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: July 20, 2004
Decided: February 15, 2005
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Patricia O. Cotter delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, the following decision shall not be cited as precedent. It shall be filed as
a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and shall be reported by case title,
Supreme Court cause number and result to the State Reporter Publishing Company and to
West Group in the quarterly table of noncitable cases issued by this Court.
¶2 Timothy Fields appeals his conviction in the Montana Thirteenth Judicial District
Court, Yellowstone County, in which a jury found him guilty of Deliberate Homicide and
Felony Assault. The District Court sentenced Fields to the Montana State Prison, and
ordered him to pay restitution to the homicide victim’s family. We affirm.
¶3 The dispositive issues are: Did Fields receive ineffective assistance of counsel when
his attorney, in stipulation with the State, moved that Fields be retried on the felony assault
charge (then the subject of postconviction proceedings), and that the retrial on the felony
assault charge be consolidated with a new trial for the deliberate homicide charge? Second,
did Fields’ subsequently appointed counsel render ineffective assistance by failing to
withdraw the motion?
¶4 The underlying facts of this case have been detailed in State v. Fields, 2002 MT 84,
309 Mont. 300, 46 P.3d 612 (“Fields I”), and will not be repeated here. After this Court
reversed and remanded Fields’ conviction on one count of Deliberate Homicide and affirmed
Fields’ conviction on one count of Felony Assault, the Yellowstone County Attorney’s
Office began preparations to retry Fields on the deliberate homicide charge. Meanwhile,
2
Fields apparently petitioned the District Court for postconviction relief on the felony assault
charge.
¶5 On July 15, 2002, Fields, through his appointed counsel, filed a Motion to
Consolidate Cases in the District Court. Fields asserted that the relief requested in his
Petition for Postconviction Relief was a new trial on the felony assault charge. Noting that
the State had no objection to consolidating the matters for retrial, Fields moved for an order
granting him a new trial on the felony assault charge, and consolidating the felony assault
case with the deliberate homicide charge for retrial in a single proceeding. Fields asserted
in the motion that he “could be arraigned on both counts and tried on each of the counts at
the same time[.]” Furthermore, he explained, the judge to whom his postconviction relief
petition had been assigned had no objection to allowing the judge to whom his deliberate
homicide case had been assigned to handle this matter as well.
¶6 Fields’ appointed counsel left the Public Defender’s Office prior to the
commencement of Fields’ trial. Fields was then represented by other attorneys from that
office. His new attorneys did not object to the consolidated trial arrangement which had
been made by his previous counsel. Trial was held in the consolidated cases, and a jury
convicted Fields on both counts on March 14, 2003.
¶7 The District Court sentenced Fields to seventy (70) years on the Deliberate Homicide
count, with an additional five (5) years, to run consecutively, for his use of a firearm during
the commission of that crime, and ten (10) years on the Felony Assault count, to run
concurrently with the deliberate homicide sentence.
3
¶8 Fields asserts that, by agreeing to consolidate these matters for retrial, his counsel was
ineffective. He maintains that he was prejudiced by the consolidation of the cases because
evidence otherwise inadmissible in one matter was admitted against him by virtue of the
consolidation.
¶9 When a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is based on facts of record it may
be raised on direct appeal, but if the allegations cannot be documented from the record, the
claims must be raised in a petition for postconviction relief. Fields I, ¶ 31 (citation omitted).
A silent record cannot rebut the strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the
wide range of reasonable professional assistance. Fields I, ¶ 31 (citations omitted). When
the record does not fully explain why counsel took a particular course of action, the matter
is best suited for postconviction proceedings which permit a further inquiry into whether the
particular representation was ineffective. Fields I, ¶ 32 (citation omitted).
¶10 We have decided this case pursuant to our Order dated February 11, 2003, amending
Section 1.3 of our 1996 Internal Operating Rules and providing for memorandum opinions.
Having reviewed the record as presented to this Court and to read the Briefs submitted in this
case, we find no basis on the record before us to grant the relief Fields seeks.
¶11 The record as submitted to this Court is simply inadequate to make any determinations
regarding Fields’ claims of ineffective assistance, and based upon that inadequacy, we
decline to consider this issue on direct appeal. We affirm the District Court.
/S/ PATRICIA O. COTTER
4
We Concur:
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
/S/ JIM RICE
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
5