Case Law State v. Rodriguez

State v. Rodriguez

Document Cited Authorities (22) Cited in (6) Related

For Appellant: Colin M. Stephens, Smith & Stephens, P.C., Missoula, Montana

For Appellee: Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Jonathan M. Krauss, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana, Joshua A. Racki, Cascade County Attorney, Jennifer Quick, Deputy County Attorney, Great Falls, Montana

Justice Ingrid Gustafson delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Defendant and Appellant Juan Anastasio Rodriguez (Rodriguez) appeals from the April 5, 2018 Sentencing Order and Judgment issued by the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, following his conviction for Sexual Intercourse Without Consent (SIWOC), a felony, after a jury trial.

¶2 We restate the issues on appeal as follows:

1. Whether the District Court erred by allowing the presentation of combined expert and lay testimony without providing a cautionary instruction or notice to counsel.
2. Whether the District Court violated Rodriguez's due process rights by failing to exclude the prosecutor from a hearing regarding defense counsel's representation.
3. Whether there is record-based evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel.

¶3 We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶4 In 2003, Rodriguez, then a member of the United States Air Force, was stationed at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Great Falls. One night in 2003, Rodriguez and his Air Force roommate Eric Stephens (Eric) met up with two teenage girls to hang out in town. As the evening drew to a close, J.S., then 15 years old, needed a ride home as her friend and co-worker Jennifer Hahn (Jennifer) wanted to continue hanging out with Eric. Rodriguez offered J.S. a ride home, which she accepted. Rather than taking J.S. directly home, however, Rodriguez began to drive up the highway towards Havre to show off how fast his car could go. Rodriguez then pulled off the highway in an isolated area outside of Great Falls, pulled down J.S.’s pants, and forcibly anally raped her. Rodriguez then drove J.S. home and dropped her off. J.S., who was bleeding from the rape, went inside her house and cleaned herself off. She did not immediately tell her family or friends about the incident with Rodriguez and stopped hanging out with Jennifer. For years after the incident, J.S. did not tell anyone about the night Rodriguez raped her in 2003.

¶5 Rodriguez later left the Air Force after a general discharge and remained in Great Falls. He got married, had children, and started a successful roofing and siding business called J.R.’s Roofing and Siding. J.S. also remained in Great Falls, and she would occasionally see Rodriguez as he would attempt to contact her over the phone or by showing up at her apartment. Though she continued not telling her family or friends about the 2003 incident, J.S. did report that she had been raped on her medical intake forms with her medical provider, family nurse practitioner Ladonna Maxwell (Maxwell) in 2007, 2008, and 2010. One New Year's Eve, J.S. was out with her friend Alexis Warren (Alexis) when Rodriguez grabbed J.S. from behind while waiting in line at a bar in Great Falls. J.S. panicked and asked Alexis to leave immediately. After getting to their car, J.S. finally disclosed the 2003 incident to Alexis. J.S. subsequently verbally disclosed the rape to Maxwell during a 2011 appointment. Maxwell referred J.S. to counseling with a licensed clinical professional counselor, Barbara Bottomly (Bottomly), to whom J.S. further disclosed the 2003 rape during treatment and therapy.

¶6 In 2014, J.S. saw a post on Facebook about Rodriguez and his business. J.S. responded on Facebook, posting "He raped me when I was 15. I was to [sic] scared to say anything then and Im.so.mad I didn't...that was almost 12 years ago now[....] It makes me sick to think he's been allowed to run around enjoying life all these years." J.S.’s Facebook post was noticed by the Great Falls Police Department (GFPD). GFPD Detective Jesse Slaughter contacted and interviewed J.S. After this interview, Detective Slaughter investigated J.S.’s allegations and interviewed Jennifer, Alexis, Eric, and others. As a result of this investigation, the Cascade County Attorney's Office filed an Information in the District Court charging Rodriguez with a single count of felony SIWOC. Pursuant to an arrest warrant, Detective Slaughter then found and arrested Rodriguez. At the time of his arrest, Rodriguez claimed to Detective Slaughter that he did not know J.S. After being arrested, Rodriguez was housed at the Cascade County Detention Center (CCDC). At the CCDC, Rodriguez was housed near Robert Paliga (Paliga). According to testimony by Paliga at trial, during the time they were housed near each other Rodriguez admitted to committing the incident with J.S. but felt confident the State would not be able to convict him as there was no DNA or other physical evidence of the crime.

¶7 Though he was arrested in December of 2014, Rodriguez did not go to trial until December of 2017. Subject to a $200,000 bond in this case and revocation proceedings from previous charges, Rodriguez remained incarcerated until trial. Shortly after being arrested, Rodriguez retained Kenneth Olson as private counsel. On May 12, 2015, the parties filed a Plea Agreement regarding both this case and a previous revocation matter, which, in relevant part, stated Rodriguez would plead guilty via an Alford plea1 to an amended charge of felony sexual assault causing bodily injury. In return for Rodriguez's plea, the State agreed to recommend a 20-year sentence to the Montana State Prison (MSP), with 10 years suspended. The State further agreed to not seek to sentence Rodriguez as a Persistent Felony Offender. The matter was set for a change of plea hearing. At the July 23, 2015 change of plea hearing, Olson advised the District Court that Rodriguez wished to withdraw from the plea agreement and proceed to trial. Trial was then set for February of 2016. On January 8, 2016, however, Rodriguez filed an unopposed motion to continue the trial along with a Waiver of Speedy Trial. The District Court ultimately re-set the jury trial for January of 2017.

¶8 On June 22, 2016, Olson filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, alleging he could no longer represent Rodriguez due to a serious conflict of interest and not being paid by Rodriguez for his services. The District Court granted Olson's motion to withdraw on June 27, 2016, and also set a hearing regarding Rodriguez's representation for July 14, 2016. That representation hearing was later re-set to August 11, 2016. At the hearing, Rodriguez informed the District Court he wished to have counsel from the Office of State Public Defender (OPD) appointed to represent him. Rodriguez further informed the court he wished for OPD attorney Vincent van der Hagen to be appointed to represent him. Following the hearing, the District Court ordered OPD to appoint counsel to represent Rodriguez. Attorney van der Hagen filed his Notice of Appointment of Counsel on September 1, 2016, and officially began representing Rodriguez. On November 1, 2016, van der Hagen filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel Due to Conflict of Interest. The District Court granted van der Hagen's motion to withdraw on November 3, 2016, and ordered OPD to immediately appoint Rodriguez new counsel. On November 15, 2016, OPD filed a Notice of Appointment of Counsel, informing the court that Shari M. Lennon would now be representing Rodriguez. After a November 17, 2016 status hearing, the District Court issued an order which vacated the January 2017 trial date and set the matter for another status hearing on January 26, 2017. On December 29, 2016, attorney James F. Gardner filed a Notice of Counsel, informing the District Court he had been appointed as new counsel for Rodriguez by OPD. OPD filed a Notice of Substitution of Counsel on January 27, 2017, notifying the parties of the substitution of Gardner for Lennon. On February 23, 2017, the District Court re-set trial for May 22, 2017. Trial was then re-set for June 12, 2017. On May 24, 2017, Rodriguez filed both a Motion to Dismiss for violation of his right to a speedy trial and a Motion to Continue Jury Trial. The District Court re-set the jury trial for December 11, 2017. The court also denied Rodriguez's motion to dismiss on June 7, 2017.

¶9 On July 10, 2017, Rodriguez filed, pro se, a Motion to Substitute or Removal [sic] of counsel, alleging Gardner had provided ineffective assistance. On August 1, 2017, pursuant to a request by Gardner for an expedited hearing on Rodriguez's pro se motion, the District Court held a representation hearing. At that hearing, both Rodriguez and Gardner spoke to the breakdown in their attorney-client relationship. Rodriguez was sworn in to testify to the allegations of ineffective assistance he made in his pro se motion, followed by the court asking Gardner to respond to those allegations. Gardner contradicted some of the claims made by Rodriguez. Counsel for the State was present throughout this hearing. On August 2, 2017, the District Court issued its Order Granting Substitute Counsel.2 In this order, the District Court found that Gardner was not ineffective, but granted Rodriguez's motion to substitute counsel due to the complete breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. The court further ordered that the December 11, 2017 trial date would be maintained and would not be re-set.

¶10 On August 23, 2017, OPD filed notices of appointment for Rodriguez's new co-counsel, Scott B. Owens and Teal Mittelstadt. On November 2, 2017, Rodriguez filed a Motion for Order Endorsing Additional Witnesses, seeking to add Sharlene Rodriguez and John Marion (Marion) as additional witnesses. The District Court granted the motion on November 7, 2017. On ...

4 cases
Document | Montana Supreme Court – 2021
State v. Secrease
"... ... ¶14 ... When a defendant raises ineffective assistance of counsel ... claims on direct appeal, we must first determine whether the ... claims are more appropriately addressed in a postconviction ... relief proceeding. State v. Rodriguez, 2021 MT 65, ... ¶ 31, 403 Mont. 360, 483 P.3d 1080 (citing ... Santoro, ¶ 16). Ineffective assistance of ... counsel claims are appropriate for review on direct appeal ... when "no plausible justification" exists for the ... actions or omissions of defense counsel ... "
Document | Montana Supreme Court – 2021
Temple v. State
"...17-18 (additional citations omitted).¶7 IAC claims are mixed questions of law and fact that we review de novo. State v. Rodriguez , 2021 MT 65, ¶ 16, 403 Mont. 360, 483 P.3d 1080.¶8 Article II, Section 24, of the Montana Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution..."
Document | Montana Supreme Court – 2021
State v. Mikesell
"...of ineffective assistance of counsel constitute mixed questions of law and fact which we review de novo. State v. Rodriguez , 2021 MT 65, ¶ 16, 403 Mont. 360, 483 P.3d 1080 (citations omitted).DISCUSSION¶17 Did trial counsel render ineffective assistance when counsel allowed prior consisten..."
Document | Montana Supreme Court – 2021
State v. Witkowski
"...communication" exists between client and counsel, thus impairing their ability to "mount an adequate defense." State v. Rodriguez , 2021 MT 65, ¶ 15, 403 Mont. 360, 483 P.3d 1080 ; State v. Khongwiset , 2020 MT 215, ¶¶ 26 and 30, 401 Mont. 142, 471 P.3d 51 ; Johnson , ¶¶ 17, 19-20, 22-23, 2..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
4 cases
Document | Montana Supreme Court – 2021
State v. Secrease
"... ... ¶14 ... When a defendant raises ineffective assistance of counsel ... claims on direct appeal, we must first determine whether the ... claims are more appropriately addressed in a postconviction ... relief proceeding. State v. Rodriguez, 2021 MT 65, ... ¶ 31, 403 Mont. 360, 483 P.3d 1080 (citing ... Santoro, ¶ 16). Ineffective assistance of ... counsel claims are appropriate for review on direct appeal ... when "no plausible justification" exists for the ... actions or omissions of defense counsel ... "
Document | Montana Supreme Court – 2021
Temple v. State
"...17-18 (additional citations omitted).¶7 IAC claims are mixed questions of law and fact that we review de novo. State v. Rodriguez , 2021 MT 65, ¶ 16, 403 Mont. 360, 483 P.3d 1080.¶8 Article II, Section 24, of the Montana Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution..."
Document | Montana Supreme Court – 2021
State v. Mikesell
"...of ineffective assistance of counsel constitute mixed questions of law and fact which we review de novo. State v. Rodriguez , 2021 MT 65, ¶ 16, 403 Mont. 360, 483 P.3d 1080 (citations omitted).DISCUSSION¶17 Did trial counsel render ineffective assistance when counsel allowed prior consisten..."
Document | Montana Supreme Court – 2021
State v. Witkowski
"...communication" exists between client and counsel, thus impairing their ability to "mount an adequate defense." State v. Rodriguez , 2021 MT 65, ¶ 15, 403 Mont. 360, 483 P.3d 1080 ; State v. Khongwiset , 2020 MT 215, ¶¶ 26 and 30, 401 Mont. 142, 471 P.3d 51 ; Johnson , ¶¶ 17, 19-20, 22-23, 2..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex