State v. L. Lalicker ( 2022 )

03/15/2022
DA 19-0717
Case Number: DA 19-0717
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2022 MT 55N
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
LYNDSEY MAE LALICKER,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Gallatin, Cause No. DC 19-80-B
Honorable Rienne H. McElyea, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Chad Wright, Appellate Defender, Deborah S. Smith, Assistant Appellate
Defender, Helena, Montana
For Appellee:
Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Roy Brown, Assistant
Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Marty Lambert, Gallatin County Attorney, Jaydan D. Johnson, Deputy
County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: February 9, 2022
Decided: March 15, 2022
Filed:
r--6ta•--df
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Ingrid Gustafson 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 Defendant and Appellant Lyndsey Mae Lalicker (Lalicker) appeals from her jury
convictions and the subsequent November 18, 2019 Sentencing Order of the Eighteenth
Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, finding her guilty of, and sentencing her for, two
counts of misdemeanor Interference with Parent-Child Contact. We affirm.
¶3 On appeal, Lalicker challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support her
convictions. Specifically, she asserts the State “presented no evidence that [Lalicker]
knowingly or purposely prevented, obstructed, or frustrated [father’s] contact with [their
child] on the two days in question.”
¶4 We review whether evidence is sufficient to support a conviction de novo. State v.
Boyd, 2021 MT 323, ¶ 12, 407 Mont. 1, 501 P.3d 409. The inquiry is whether, after
reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of
fact could have found the essential elements of the charged offense beyond a reasonable
doubt. Boyd, ¶ 12. The question is whether sufficient evidence exists to support the verdict,
not whether the evidence could have supported a different result. State v. Daniels, 2019
MT 214, ¶ 42, 397 Mont. 204, 448 P.3d 511.
¶5 Section 45-5-631(1), MCA, provides:
2
A person who has been granted parent-child contact under a parenting plan
commits the offense of interference with parent-child contact if the person
knowingly or purposely prevents, obstructs, or frustrates the rights of another
person entitled to parent-child contact under an existing court order.
Lalicker was charged with two misdemeanor counts of interference with parent-child
contact, one alleged to have been committed on December 31, 2017, and one alleged to
have been committed on January 7, 2018. Lalicker and Luke Oyler (Oyler) are the parents
of L.L. Since L.L’s birth, they have engaged in contentious, ongoing litigation regarding
the parenting of their child. Ultimately, the court handling their parenting plan action
issued a Parenting Plan which provided each Lalicker and Oyler parenting time with their
child and provided for a graduated parenting schedule which gradually increased Oyler’s
parenting time.1 Multiple disputes arose as to the parenting plan such that the Standing
Master appointed a parenting coordinator, K.C. McLaughlin (McLaughlin), to assist the
parties to progress to implement the final parenting plan. On December 29, 2017, the
Standing Master ordered, “[t]he parties shall comply with Ms. McLaughlin’s directives and
scheduling of parenting time on time and as scheduled.” The District Court subsequently
confirmed this order and reiterated, “the parties will comply with [McLaughlin’s]
directives.” On December 29, 2017, McLaughlin emailed this Order to the parties and
advised that a child exchange would occur the following day at the Law and Justice Center
in Bozeman. Lalicker confirmed receipt of the email and advised she was out of town and
1
By December 2017, the parties had progressed to between Sections 5D and 5E of the Parenting
Plan. Section 5D provided Oyler with one five-hour unsupervised visit per week and Section 5E
provided him with two five-hour visits per week, with which Lalicker was ordered to “cooperate
fully.”
3
sought advice “so I can follow your directives.” McLaughlin then rescheduled the child
exchange to December 31, 2017, to permit Lalicker time to return to Bozeman to
accomplish the exchange. Lalicker responded that future correspondence should be sent
to her attorney. Oyler was present for the scheduled exchange on December 31, 2017, but
Lalicker did not appear with L.L., depriving Oyler of his contact with L.L. on that date.
McLaughlin likewise advised the parties Oyler would exercise parenting time on January 7,
2018. Oyler, McLaughlin, and Gallatin County Sheriff’s Office Captain Wagner were
present for the scheduled exchange on January 7, 2018. Again, Lalicker did not appear
with L.L. for this scheduled child exchange, depriving Oyler of his contact with L.L. on
that date.
¶6 At trial, Lalicker admitted she was aware of the scheduled visits of December 31,
2017, and January 7, 2018 and that she did not bring L.L. for the scheduled exchanges.
Lalicker asserted Oyler was not entitled to the visit on December 31, 2017, and she did not
recognize McLaughlin’s authority to schedule a visit on January 7, 2018, asserting such to
violate the parenting plan.
¶7 From our review of the record, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State,
sufficient evidence was presented to support Lalicker’s convictions for interference with
parent-child contact in violation of § 45-5-631, MCA. The State proved, and Lalicker does
not contend otherwise, that both Lalicker and Oyler were granted and entitled to
parent-child contact under the court-ordered Parenting Plan. Oyler testified as to the
4
difficulties he encountered in securing his parenting contact.2 McLaughlin also testified to
difficulties in working with Lalicker, testifying the very reason McLaughlin was appointed
as the parenting plan coordinator was due to difficulties posed by Lalicker in effectuating
Oyler’s parenting time. Section 5D of the parenting plan specifically put Lalicker on notice
she was ordered to cooperate fully in scheduling Oyler’s parenting time. McLaughlin
testified this language was added to the later phases of the Parenting Plan because in
McLaughlin’s attempts to obtain Lalicker’s cooperation in scheduling parenting time for
Oyler, Lalicker was “very hard” to deal with. Oyler testified, and Lalicker admitted,
Lalicker did not appear for the scheduled exchange on December 31, 2017. Oyler,
McLaughlin, and Captain Wagner testified, and Lalicker admitted, that Lalicker also did
not appear for the scheduled exchange on January 7, 2018. Lalicker was able to fully
present her asserted explanation for failing to appear for these exchanges which apparently
the jury did not find credible. Given the court-ordered Parenting Plan together with the
difficulties Oyler and McLaughlin experienced in effectuating Oyler’s parenting time and
Lalicker’s admission she knew of the scheduled exchanges and she did not bring L.L. for
the exchanges on December 31, 2017, and January 7, 2018, a jury could have reasonably
found the essential elements of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt—on
December 31, 2017, and on January 7, 2018, Lalicker knowingly or purposely prevented,
2
Oyler testified, without objection, that Lalicker had a history of frustrating his contact with L.L.
by failing to appear for child exchanges on at least eight prior occasions, telling L.L. he was not
her father, and engaging in conduct including following him, videotaping him, and harassing him.
5
obstructed, or frustrated Oyler’s parent-child contact provided for in their court-ordered
Parenting Plan by failing to provide L.L. to Oyler for his designated parenting time.
¶8 Lalicker also asserts her defense counsel rendered deficient performance because
Lalicker acted under an existing court order or with reasonable cause and, further, the
“return of the child” affirmative defense would have relieved her of liability. Lalicker
asserts there is no plausible reason her counsel failed to raise these affirmative defenses
available under § 45-5-633(1)(b), (c), (2), MCA.
¶9 Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are mixed questions of law and fact that
we review de novo. State v. Jefferson, 2003 MT 90, ¶ 42, 315 Mont. 146, 69 P.3d 641.
¶10 Article II, Section 24, of the Montana Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the
United States Constitution, as incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantee
a defendant the right to effective assistance of counsel. See State v. Kougl, 2004 MT 243,
¶ 11, 323 Mont. 6, 97 P.3d 1095. In assessing ineffective assistance of counsel claims, we
apply the two-pronged test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct.
2052 (1984). Kougl, ¶ 11. Under the Strickland test, the defendant must (1) demonstrate
that “counsel’s performance was deficient or fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness” and (2) “establish prejudice by demonstrating that there was a reasonable
probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceedings would have been
different.” Kougl, ¶ 11 (quoting State v. Turnsplenty, 2003 MT 159, ¶ 14, 316 Mont. 275,
70 P.3d 1234). Courts determine deficient performance based on whether a defendant’s
counsel acted within the broad “range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal
cases.” Schaff v. State, 2003 MT 187, ¶ 18, 316 Mont. 453, 73 P.3d 803 (citations omitted).
6
A strong presumption exists that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of
reasonable professional conduct. Kougl, ¶ 11.
¶11 When defendants raise ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal, we
first determine whether the claims are more appropriately addressed in a postconviction
relief proceeding. Kougl, ¶ 14. “[A] record which is silent about the reasons for the
attorney’s actions or omissions seldom provides sufficient evidence to rebut” the strong
presumption counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional
conduct. State v. Sartain, 2010 MT 213, ¶ 30, 357 Mont. 483, 241 P.3d 1032. If we cannot
answer from the record “the question ‘why’ counsel did or did not take the actions
constituting the alleged ineffective assistance, the claims are better raised by a petition for
post-conviction relief where the record can be more fully developed, unless ‘no plausible
justification’ exists for the defense counsel’s actions or omissions[.]” Sartain, ¶ 30 (quoting
Kougl, ¶¶ 14-15 (internal citation omitted)).
¶12 Section 45-5-633(1)(b), (c), MCA, provides a person does not commit interference
with parent-child contact if the person acts “under an existing court order” or “with
reasonable cause.” Although technically not raised as affirmative defenses, Lalicker
effectively presented these defenses to the jury. At trial, Lalicker asserted she was confused
about the Parenting Plan and she acted with reasonable cause as she was merely following
what she believed the existing Parenting Plan provided. In closing, her counsel aptly
argued defenses under § 45-5-633(1)(b), (c), MCA. Although the jury did not give
credence to these defenses, we do not find counsel was ineffective in raising and presenting
them.
7
¶13 With regard to the “return of the child” affirmative defense, the record is silent as
to the reason counsel did not raise this affirmative defense. Although the record is silent
as to why counsel did not raise the “return of the child” affirmative defense, contrary to
Lalicker’s position that there are no plausible reasons for her counsel’s failure to raise this
affirmative defense, the State points out various plausible reasons for her counsel failing
to raise this affirmative defense.3 We agree with the State that the record before us does
not explain why defense counsel did not raise the “return of the child” affirmative defense
and such claim, if it should be asserted at all, is better left to postconviction relief.
¶14 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our
Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion of the
Court, the case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear application of
applicable standards of review.
¶15 Affirmed.
/S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON
We concur:
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR
3
Including that counsel may have reasonably concluded Lalicker never returned L.L. to Oyler as
required to raise the defense or that since Lalicker was never arrested but rather given a citation,
such defense was not available to her.
8