Opinion ID: 884043
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Did the District Court err in failing to conduct a hearing on Finley's complaints about the effectiveness of his counsel's representation?

Text: Finley argues that when he filed a pro se motion for change of venue, the District Court erred in not conducting a hearing on Finley's complaints about the effectiveness of his counsel set forth in his motion. The State argues that a district court's duty to inquire into the adequacy of counsel extends only to motions for substitution of counsel and that Finley's pro se motion sought a change of venue, not dismissal or substitution of counsel. We have held that we look to the substance of the motion, not simply its title. Miller v. Herbert (1995), 272 Mont. 132, 136, 900 P.2d 273, 275. The legal effect of any court-filed paperbe it a motion, a pleading or some other instrumentis to be measured by its content rather than by the author-provided title. Hulsey v. Mid-America Preferred Insurance Company (Okl. 1989), 777 P.2d 932, 936 n. 14. In the instant case, Finley filed a pro se motion titled as a motion for change of venue. However, the substance of the motion indicates that Finley was in fact complaining about the assistance of his counsel. Finley listed six reasons for his motion. In his reason number one, he complained that: The accused does not feel comfortable and confident with the council [sic] [B.A.], accused feels he's not getting the Effective [sic] representation from [B.A.] In his reason number three, Finley complained that Council [sic] has mentioned that he's worked for Lake Co. for two year's and has had no win's during his term in this office. And finally in his reason number four, Finley stated that he was told that there would be an investigation in this case on his behalf and that he felt that it was too late in the case to have an investigation on his behalf because the victims had a long time to get their statements straight. Under the circumstances, Finley's motion contained sufficient indicia that it was in substance a motion complaining of ineffective assistance of counsel, and we will treat it as such. Finley contends that the District Court should have inquired into the validity of his complaints. We agree. In State v. Morrison (1993), 257 Mont. 282, 284, 848 P.2d 514, 516, this Court discussed whether a district court erred in failing to hold a hearing regarding appellant's request for appointment of substitute counsel. The defendant in Morrison wrote to the district court approximately four months before trial complaining that his counsel had not yet spoken to him to prepare for his defense. The court ordered counsel to speak with the court and the defendant regarding the complaint. Defendant did not raise any other complaints until the sentencing hearings. At that time, he again complained of the lack of communication between himself and his attorney. Morrison, 848 P.2d at 516-17. We noted that a defendant has the right to a meaningful client-attorney relationship. Morrison, 848 P.2d at 516 (citing State v. Enright (1988), 233 Mont. 225, 229, 758 P.2d 779, 782). Upon a showing of a seemingly substantial complaint about counsel, the district court should conduct a hearing to determine the validity of the defendant's claim. Morrison, 848 P.2d at 516. In determining if defendant presented a seemingly substantial complaint about counsel, it follows that the district court must make an adequate inquiry into the defendant's complaints. In Morrison, we held that the defendant failed to present seemingly substantial complaints about his counsel and further that the district court made a sufficient inquiry into defendant's complaints. Morrison, 848 P.2d at 517. However, in Enright, where the defendant was forced to choose between proceeding with ineffective assistance of counsel or proceeding pro se, we held that the district court's failure to conduct a hearing on defendant's seemingly substantial complaints inhibited informed appellate review. Enright, 758 P.2d at 782. In determining whether Finley presented seemingly substantial complaints about the effectiveness of his counsel, the District Court should have inquired into the complaints and made some sort of a critical analysis at the time the motion was filed. The District Court failed to make an initial determination of whether Finley presented substantial complaints in his pro se motion, and accordingly erred in that respect. However, in this case, the District Court corrected its error by conducting a post-trial hearing on Finley's complaints regarding his counsel's representation. Accordingly, we conclude that the District Court's failure to hold a hearing at the time that Finley filed his pro se motion was harmless. See State v. Mix (1989), 239 Mont. 351, 356-57, 781 P.2d 751, 754.