Larson v. State

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Walter M. Larson Jr.’s second petition for post-conviction relief. The court held that the petition was virtually identical to the first, raised allegations that could have been presented earlier, and offered no new substantial evidence as required for a successive petition. The court also upheld the decision not to require renewed affidavits or hold an evidentiary hearing.

Holdings

1. A district court must dismiss a second or subsequent postconviction-relief petition unless it raises grounds for relief that could not reasonably have been raised in the original or amended original petition. Larson's second petition was properly dismissed because it repeated virtually identical conclusory ineffective-assistance allegations and presented no new substantial evidence.
2. The District Court did not abuse its discretion by declining to hold another evidentiary hearing or require Larson's former attorneys to submit response affidavits a second time.
3. Larson had no constitutional entitlement to appointed counsel in his postconviction proceeding, and appointment after direct appeal is within the district court's discretion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the District Court properly dismissed Larson's second postconviction-relief petition under Montana Code section 46-21-105(1)(b) because it repeated claims that were or could have been raised in the original petition.
2. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by declining to require former defense counsel to submit new response affidavits or by declining to hold an evidentiary hearing.
3. Whether Larson was entitled to appointment of counsel in the postconviction proceeding.

Disposition

affirmed