State v. Rardon

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court remanded the matter to the district court to determine whether appointed counsel should be permitted to withdraw and, if so, to appoint replacement counsel for William Lester Rardon’s direct appeal. The Court held that a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to counsel on direct appeal and that appointed counsel’s obligation continues through the appeal unless the appointing court authorizes withdrawal.

Holdings

1. A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to counsel on a direct appeal, and an appeal from resentencing ordered on remand is a direct appeal for which the defendant is entitled to counsel.
2. Assigned counsel must continue representing a defendant through final judgment, including proceedings on direct appeal, unless relieved by an order of the court that assigned counsel; filing a notice of termination alone does not satisfy that obligation.
3. The matter must be remanded to the district court to determine whether appointed counsel should be allowed to withdraw and, if withdrawal is approved, to appoint other appropriate counsel; the court may also determine whether Rardon remains indigent and eligible for appointed counsel.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a criminal defendant is constitutionally entitled to appointed counsel for a direct appeal from resentencing.
2. Whether appointed counsel may terminate representation by filing a notice of termination without an order from the appointing court.
3. What action the district court must take to ensure Rardon has counsel for the appeal.

Disposition

remanded