Petgrave v. State

208 A.3d 371

Jonathan A. PETGRAVE

v.STATE of Maine

Docket: Aro-18-257

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued: December 12, 2018

Decided: May 21, 2019

David Paris, Esq. (orally), Bath, for appellant Jonathan A. Petgrave

R. Christopher Almy, District Attorney, and Mark A. Rucci, Asst. Dist. Atty. (orally), Prosecutorial District V, Bangor, for appellee State of Maine

Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.

Majority: SAUFLEY, C.J., and MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.

Concurrence: ALEXANDER, J.

MEAD, J.

[¶1] For the third time in recent years we are called upon to establish a procedure for bringing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a specific context where a party has the right to the effective assistance of counsel and where no statutory procedure to enforce that right existed previously—here in the context of a claim arising from a probation revocation judgment. See In re Henry B. , 2017 ME 72, 159 A.3d 824 (claim of ineffective assistance of counsel arising from an involuntary commitment proceeding); In re M.P. , 2015 ME 138, 126 A.3d 718 (claim of ineffective assistance of counsel arising from a termination of parental rights proceeding). We do so being mindful of two primary considerations: (1) the Legislature has provided by statute that review of a revocation of a defendant's probation "must be by appeal to the Law Court," 17-A M.R.S. § 1207(1) (2018) ; and (2) for that appeal to be meaningful, we must have a sufficiently well-developed record to review.

I. BACKGROUND

[¶2] In August 2016, after Jonathan Petgrave pleaded guilty to a charge of unlawful possession of a scheduled drug (Class B), 17-A M.R.S. § 1107-A(1)(A)(2) (2018), the trial court (Aroostook County, Hunter, J. ) entered a judgment and commitment imposing a sentence of three years' imprisonment with all but 120 days suspended, two years of probation, a $ 500 fine, and payment of $ 120 in restitution.

[¶3] One year later, the State moved to revoke Petgrave's probation, alleging that he had committed a serious domestic violence assault. While that motion was pending, the State filed a second motion to revoke, alleging that Petgrave was unlawfully in possession of a firearm. Petgrave entered denials to both motions and counsel was appointed to represent him. The court (Stewart, J. ) then changed venue to Penobscot County on Petgrave's motion. On December 19, 2017, following an evidentiary hearing on the first motion to revoke, the court (Campbell, J. ) found that Petgrave had violated his probation. At a dispositional hearing the court fully revoked Petgrave's probation and ordered that he serve the two years, eight months remaining on his underlying sentence. It declared the second motion to revoke moot.

[¶4] Petgrave requested a certificate of probable cause to appeal pursuant to M.R. App. P. 19, asserting that there was insufficient evidence to establish either that he was on probation at the time of the alleged assault or that the assault occurred. We denied the request.

[¶5] While that request was pending, Petgrave, with new counsel, filed a petition for post-conviction review in the trial court alleging that his counsel had been ineffective at the revocation hearing in failing to call unspecified witnesses and in "fail[ing] to present a proper defense." The court (Anderson, J. ) summarily dismissed the petition, determining that pursuant to 15 M.R.S. § 2121(2) (2018), "post-sentencing proceedings which are proper to challenge on post-conviction review do not include revocation of probation hearings." (Alterations and quotation marks omitted); see M.R.U. Crim. P. 70(b). The court concluded that Petgrave's remedy for any claim of error arising from the revocation hearing was to seek a discretionary appeal pursuant to 17-A M.R.S. § 1207(1), as he had already done. Petgrave appealed from the summary dismissal of his petition and we granted a certificate of probable cause. M.R. App. P. 19(a)(2)(F).

II. DISCUSSION

A. Petgrave's Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel

[¶6] Petgrave asserts that beyond the bare right to have counsel represent him at the hearing, he had a due process right to the effective assistance of counsel. The State agrees, as do we. The Legislature grants a person accused of violating probation the right to counsel, including the right to court-appointed counsel if the person is indigent, 17-A M.R.S. § 1205-C(4) (2018),¹ and we recently held in another context involving the potential deprivation of liberty that "where a state statute affords an individual ... the right to counsel, the legislature could not have intended that counsel could be prejudicially ineffective." In re Henry B. , 2017 ME 72, ¶ 6, 159 A.3d 824 (quotation marks omitted). Applying the same rationale here, we conclude that Petgrave had the right to have counsel assist him effectively before his probation was revoked and he was subjected to further incarceration.

B. The Strickland Test

[¶7] Petgrave next urges that the question of whether he received effective assistance at the revocation hearing should be answered by applying the two-part test first articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), which applies to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at criminal trials, see, e.g. , Fahnley v. State , 2018 ME 92, ¶ 17, 188 A.3d 871.² Again, the State agrees.

[¶8] We also agree that Strickland is the proper test for evaluating whether counsel was effective in this context. It is the test used to evaluate such claims arising from criminal trials, Fahnley , 2018 ME 92, ¶ 17, 188 A.3d 871 ; involuntary commitment proceedings, In re Henry B. , 2017 ME 72, ¶ 9, 159 A.3d 824 ; and proceedings to terminate parental rights, In re M.P. , 2015 ME 138, ¶ 26, 126 A.3d 718 ; and, as we have noted, "[t]he Strickland standard is known to the bar and the bench, and Strickland carries with it a developing body of case law, which will aid courts in the efficient and timely resolution of such claims." In re M.P. , 2015 ME 138, ¶ 26, 126 A.3d 718 ; see also In re Henry B. , 2017 ME 72, ¶ 8, 159 A.3d 824 (" Strickland is a well-known and developing standard").

C. Statutory Construction

[¶9] The post-conviction review process, 15 M.R.S. §§ 2121 - 2132 (2018), is, as the trial court concluded, unavailable in the case of a probation revocation. By statute, post-conviction review is available to review "post-sentencing proceedings occurring during the course of sentences." 15 M.R.S. § 2122. A probation revocation hearing would ordinarily qualify. The Legislature, however, has unambiguously said that "revocation of probation" is not a "post-sentencing proceeding." 15 M.R.S. § 2121(2). Accordingly, the post-conviction review process—which is, "except for direct appeals from a criminal judgment, [the] exclusive method of review ... of post-sentencing proceedings," 15 M.R.S. § 2122—is not an available mechanism for the defendant to seek a remedy in this case. For that reason, the trial court, correctly applying the statutory and case law existing at the time, dismissed Petgrave's petition.

[¶10] The unavoidable conclusion that the post-conviction review process found in Title 15 is not available to Petgrave is reinforced in the Criminal Code, where the Legislature has declared that "[r]eview of a revocation of probation ... must be by [discretionary] appeal to the Law Court." 17-A M.R.S. § 1207(1) (emphasis added); see M.R. App. P. 19(a)(2)(B). Having a discretionary appeal as the only available avenue for appellate review creates an insurmountable obstacle for Petgrave, however, because for more than twenty years we have maintained a bright-line rule that in a criminal context we will not consider claims of ineffective assistance on direct appeal, but rather will only consider such claims following a post-conviction review hearing. State v. Nichols , 1997 ME 178, ¶¶ 4-5, 698 A.2d 521 ; see State v. Troy , 2014 ME 65, ¶ 3, 91 A.3d 1064 (same). As a result of the prohibition in section 1207(1) and our holding in Nichols , it would initially appear that Petgrave is deprived of an opportunity to obtain meaningful review, including an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing, on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in his probation revocation matter. We must therefore look elsewhere to identify the avenue for such a claim to be pursued.

D. Habeas Corpus

[¶11] "The statutory remedy of post-conviction review, 15 M.R.S. §§ 2121 - 2132, was intended to fully replace and implement the constitutional right of post-conviction habeas corpus as it pertains to a post-sentencing proceeding that occurs during the course of an offender's sentence." James v. State , 2008 ME 122, ¶ 12, 953 A.2d 1152. Section 2122 specifically states that post-conviction review "replaces the remedies available pursuant to post-conviction habeas corpus, to the extent that review of a criminal conviction or proceedings were reviewable, [and] the remedies available pursuant to common law habeas corpus, including habeas corpus as recognized in Title 14, sections 5501 and 5509 to 5546." 15 M.R.S. § 2122.

[¶12] Section 2122 further states that the post-conviction review chapter is "construed to provide relief for those persons required to use this chapter as required by the Constitution of Maine, Article I, Section 10." Id. Article I, section 10 of the Maine Constitution states, in pertinent part, that "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended , unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." (Emphasis added). Thus, where the writ of habeas corpus was available pursuant to article I, section 10 to protect fundamental rights—including the right to effective assistance of counsel—the rule of construction stated in section 2122 confirms that habeas corpus relief remains available for Petgrave because he is not a person who...