IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2008 MT 77N
CORY MINEZ,
Petitioner and Appellant,
v. DA 06-0822
STATE OF MONTANA,
Respondent and Appellee.
****************************************
CORY MINEZ,
Petitioner and Appellant,
v. DA 07-0073
STATE OF MONTANA,
Respondent and Appellee.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twentieth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Lake, Cause Nos. DC-00-30, DC-00-113
Honorable C.B. McNeil, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Jim Wheelis, Chief Appellate Defender; Meghan Lulf Sutton
Assistant Appellant Defender, Helena, Montana
For Appellee:
Hon. Mike McGrath, Attorney General; C. Mark Fowler, Assistant
Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Mitch Young, Lake County Attorney, Polson, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: November 27, 2007
Decided: March 4, 2008
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
2
Chief Justice Karla M. Gray 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 2003, 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 Cory Minez (Minez) appeals from the order entered by the Twentieth Judicial District
Court, Lake County, denying his petitions for postconviction relief relating to two separate
underlying criminal proceedings. We affirm.
¶3 The issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred in denying Minez’s petitions
for postconviction relief.
¶4 On December 17, 2001, the District Court entered judgment in its Cause No. DC-00-
30 on Minez’s convictions and sentences for the offenses of felony criminal production or
manufacture of dangerous drugs, felony criminal possession of dangerous drugs and
misdemeanor criminal possession of drug paraphernalia. On February 20, 2002, the District
Court entered judgment in its Cause No. DC-00-113 on Minez’s convictions and sentences
for the felony offenses of criminal production or manufacture of dangerous drugs and use or
possession of property subject to criminal forfeiture. Minez appealed separately from each
judgment and we affirmed in both cases. See State v. Minez, 2004 MT 115, 321 Mont. 148,
89 P.3d 966; State v. Minez, 2003 MT 344, 318 Mont. 478, 82 P.3d 1.
3
¶5 Minez subsequently filed petitions for postconviction relief collaterally challenging
his convictions in each proceeding. His petition filed in Cause No. DC-00-30 alleged his
trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to support his pretrial motion to
suppress evidence with affidavits or other evidence; failing to request a hearing on the
suppression motion; failing to challenge the sufficiency of the return on a search warrant as
an additional basis for the motion to suppress; and failing to pursue his motion to dismiss the
Information on double jeopardy grounds. Minez’s petition in Cause No. DC-00-113 alleged
his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to adequately advise
Minez regarding a plea agreement offered by the State; failing to pursue further plea
negotiations with the State; failing to adequately advise Minez of the ramifications of the
State’s filing of a notice to seek persistent felony offender designation upon conviction; and
failing to object to the State’s persistent felony offender notice.
¶6 The District Court held a combined evidentiary hearing on both postconviction relief
petitions at which Minez and his trial counsel testified. Following the hearing, the court
entered its findings of fact, conclusions of law and an order denying Minez’s petitions. With
regard to the ineffective assistance of counsel claims relating to Cause No. DC-00-30, the
District Court concluded Minez’s claims were barred by § 46-21-105, MCA, because they
could have been raised on direct appeal and, further, that Minez failed to establish either
deficient performance or prejudice regarding those claims. The District Court similarly
determined that Minez failed to establish either deficient performance or prejudice regarding
the claims relating to Cause No. DC-00-113. Minez appeals. Following the filing of his
4
notices of appeal, Minez moved this Court to consolidate the cases for purposes of appeal
and we granted the motion.
¶7 We review a district court’s denial of a petition for postconviction relief to determine
whether the court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous and its conclusions of law correct.
Adgerson v. State, 2007 MT 336, ¶ 7, 340 Mont. 242, ¶ 7, 174 P.3d 475, ¶ 7. We analyze
postconviction claims of ineffective assistance of counsel by applying a two-prong test which
requires a petitioner to establish that his counsel’s performance was deficient and the
deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Adgerson, ¶ 17. “A petitioner bears a heavy
burden in seeking to reverse a district court’s denial of postconviction relief based on a claim
of ineffective assistance of counsel.” Adgerson, ¶ 17.
¶8 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) of our
1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, which provides for memorandum
opinions. It is manifest on the face of the briefs and the record that the appeal is without
merit because there is clearly sufficient evidence to support the District Court’s findings of
fact and the issues are clearly controlled by settled Montana law which the District Court
correctly interpreted.
¶9 Affirmed.
/S/ KARLA M. GRAY
We concur:
5
/S/ JOHN WARNER
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
6
Minez v. State
Combined Opinion