Court Opinion

ID: 9405328
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-27 22:06:56.143019+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:21.301223
License: Public Domain

.,••••
                                          rv-;
                                                 1.1            -                                   06/27/2023

             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
                                                                                                Case Number: DA 22-0167

                                          DA 22-0167

 SARAH RAE McKNIGHT,
                                                                                 JUN 2 7 2023
                                                                              Bowen G _en y?noci
               Plaintiff and Appellee,                                              ;, :.;;_:_rerne Court
                                                                               State 01 Montana

        v.                                                              ORDER

 STATE OF MONTANA,

              Defendant and Appellant.

       Appellant Sarah Rae McKnight (McKnight) has appealed from the Order on
Post-Conviction Relief of the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, in its Cause
No. DC-16-16.
       On May 17, 2016, McKnight plead guilty to five felonies—including deliberate
hornicide, attempted deliberate homicide, and aggravated kidnaping—and on February 23,
2017, McKnight was sentenced to two consecutive life sentences, together with three,
ten-year concurrent sentences.       Within a year, McKnight filed a pro se motion for
ineffective assistance of counsel which the District Court treated as a petition for
postconviction relief (PCR). The State responded requesting the court appoint McKnight
postconviction counsel and set a hearing, both of which the court did. Attorney Kottke
filed her appearance in the case and requested the hearing be vacated so she could consult
with McKnight and file an amended PCR petition. As such, the court vacated the hearing.
Twenty-seven months later, attorney Stephens substituted for Kottke as counsel of record.
In his notice he indicated that he, too, intended to amend the PCR petition and request a
hearing. Two- and one-half years later, on February 18, 2022, the District Court issued an
order dismissing McKnight's PCR petition.'

   The order provides that no amendment to the PCR petition was ever filed, no hearing was
requested, and concluded McKnight's allegations of IAC were unsupported or false. The District
Court concluded McKnight's allegations that her counsel failed to investigate her case or withheld
       McKnight asserts the District Court abused its discretion in dismissing her PCR
petition without a hearing and that she received ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC)
from her PCR court-appointed attorneys for failing to investigate, file an amended petition,
or request a hearing. As the District Court ordered the State to respond, the State
acknowledges the court did not determine McKnight's original petition and the record
conclusively established she was not entitled to relief and that the State had agreed there
was no way for the court to conclusively deny McKnight's petition when it requested the
couri set an evidentiary hearing.       The State concedes that, based on the facts and
circumstances of this case, the District Court should have held an evidentiary hearing to
hear McKnight's IAC claims. The State agrees it is appropriate to reverse and remand this
matter for further proceedings.
       Based on our review of the record and the State's concession, we agree the District
Court's order dismissing McKnight's PCR petition must be reversed and this matter
remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.
       IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
       That the District Court's February 18, 2022 Order on Post-Conviction Relief is
REVERSED and this matter is REMANDED for further proceedings to include: (1) a
determination of the status of currently appointed counsel and whether counsel desires to
continue as counsel of record; (2) appointment of new counsel, if necessary or appropriate;
(3) entry of a scheduling order providing deadlines for amending McKnight's petition, for
the filing of the State's responsive pleading, and for the closure of discovery; and (4) setting
an evidentiary hearing on the amended petition.
       IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED without prejudice to
bring appeal with regard to further proceedings occurring in District Court subsequent to
this remand.

evidence from her or the court were conclusory and lacked evidentiary support and surmised that
this was why no amended petitions were ever filed or evidentiary hearing requested by her PCR
counsel.

                                               2
      IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that REMITTITUR shall issue IMMEDIATELY
UPON REMAND.
      The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to
presiding judge Honorable Robert L. Deschamps.
      Dated thisc-4— day ofJune, 2023.

                                                              Chief Justice

                                                                 Justices

                                            3