State v. Gazda12/18/2003
Argued and Submitted: October 7, 2003
John L. Gazda (Gazda) appeals from his conviction of deliberate homicide, a felony in violation of § 45-5-102(1)(a), MCA, following a jury trial in the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On or about August 9, 2001, Gazda shot and killed Bronson Smith in a remote area outside of Craig, Montana. Subsequently, authorities arrested Gazda in Las Vegas, Nevada, on a federal warrant pursuant to a federal charge that Gazda, a felon, possessed a weapon and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He was then transported back to the state of Montana, and remained in federal custody until the conclusion of his federal trial and sentencing. On April 16, 2002, a federal jury in the United States District Court convicted Gazda on both possession offenses.
On January 10, 2002, before trial on the federal charges, the State charged Gazda by Information with deliberate homicide, a felony in violation of § 45-5-102(1)(a), MCA. The charges alleged that Gazda purposely or knowingly caused the death of Bronson Smith.
On May 23, 2002, Gazda filed a motion to dismiss the state deliberate homicide charges on double jeopardy grounds. He argued that he was being placed twice in jeopardy by virtue of his conviction of the federal charges, noting that the prosecution had presented evidence in the federal trial that he had committed the homicide. In denying Gazda's motion, the District Court found that although evidence regarding possession of the rifle would be essentially the same as was presented in federal court, Gazda's courses of conduct in possessing the firearm and ammunition, elements of the federal charges, were clear and distinct and did not arise out of the same transaction as the state charge.
On August 1 and 5, 2002, Gazda personally submitted handwritten letters to District Judge Thomas Honzel requesting appointment of new counsel. He claimed he and his current counsel, Randi Hood, were completely unable to effectively communicate about motion filing and defense strategy. He alleged that this total lack of communication created a conflict of interest and rendered Hood unable to adequately represent his interests.
In response to these allegations, the District Court conducted a hearing on August 6, 2002, regarding the initial inquiry to determine whether Gazda's complaint was substantial. The court, after receiving testimony from both Gazda and Hood, concluded that Hood was providing effective assistance of counsel and denied Gazda's motion for appointment of new counsel.
On August 22, 2002, a Lewis and Clark County jury convicted Gazda of deliberate homicide. It is from this conviction that Gazda appeals and raises the following issues on appeal:
1. Whether Montana's double jeopardy statute bars a subsequent state deliberate homicide prosecution after a federal conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition.
2. Whether the District Court abused its discretion when it failed to appoint Gazda counsel during an initial inquiry addressing Gazda's request to remove appointed counsel and appoint new counsel.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The grant or denial of a motion to dismiss in a criminal case is a question of law which is reviewed de novo on appeal. State v. Beanblossom , 2002 MT 351, 9, 313 Mont. 394, 9, 61 P.3d 165, 9. This Court reviews denials of requests for the appointment of new counsel for abuse of discretion. State v. Weaver , 2001 MT 115, 18, 305 Mont. 315, 18, 28 P.3d 451, 18.
DISCUSSION
ISSUE ONE
<
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Montana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|