Ragner v. State

2025 MT 145

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Decided: July 8, 2025
• Docket: DA 24-0490
• Status: Published

Opinion

07/08/2025

DA 24-0490 Case Number: DA 24-0490

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2025 MT 145

SHELBY RAGNER,

Petitioner and Appellee,

v.

STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, In and For the County of Gallatin, Cause Nos. DV-23-478B and DC-19-189B Honorable Rienne H. McElyea, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Tammy K Plubell, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana

Audrey Cromwell, Gallatin County Attorney, Afton Martinez, Deputy County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana

For Appellee:

Jami Rebsom, Jami Rebsom Law Firm PLLC, Livingston, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: April 30, 2025

Decided: July 8, 2025

Filed: Vir'-6A._,-if __________________________________________ Clerk Justice Katherine Bidegaray delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 This appeal arises from the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County,

which granted Shelby Ragner’s petition for postconviction relief, finding that his trial

counsel, Alexander Jacobi, rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to

interview and present the testimony of Max Weimer.

¶2 We address the following restated issue:

Whether the District Court erred in granting Ragner’s petition for postconviction relief due to ineffective assistance of counsel.

We reverse.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶3 On May 19, 2019, the State charged Shelby Ragner with aggravated sexual

intercourse without consent, alleging that Ragner had sexual intercourse with C.M. without

her consent while she was severely intoxicated. Ragner was represented by attorney

Alexander Jacobi, who filed his notice of appearance on July 1, 2019. The next day, Ragner

sent Jacobi a letter in which he detailed everything he could remember relating to the events

that transpired during the incident and shortly thereafter; he did not mention Max Weimer.

Ragner also provided Jacobi a list of witnesses and other people to interview; he did not

list Max Weimer.

¶4 Following a jury trial from October 20-23, 2020, at which Jacobi did not call Max

Weimer as a witness and Ragner did not testify, the jury found Ragner not guilty of

aggravated sexual intercourse without consent but convicted him of sexual intercourse

without consent (SIWOC). The trial evidence included testimony from multiple witnesses

2 and medical evidence that described C.M.’s severe intoxication and significant injuries,

and from Ragner himself admitting in recorded statements to Detective Ross that C.M. was

“too intoxicated to consent.”

¶5 At his sentencing hearing, on January 25, 2021, Jacobi submitted a letter from

Ragner’s friend, Max Weimer, addressing Ragner’s good character and expressing concern

that Ragner had not been given the opportunity to present his account of the events. In his

letter, Weimer did not mention observing injuries on Ragner. The District Court sentenced

Ragner to ten years in prison, with four years suspended. Ragner filed a direct appeal to

this Court raising several issues, which we denied, affirming his conviction in Ragner I.1

¶6 On May 12, 2023, Ragner filed a petition for postconviction relief alleging Jacobi

was ineffective by failing, among other claims, to interview and call exculpatory witnesses

at trial, including Ragner’s therapist2 and Weimer. During the postconviction evidentiary

hearing, Weimer testified that Ragner visited him the morning after the incident. Weimer

described Ragner as disheveled and in shock. He stated Ragner mentioned he had bruises

“all over his body,” but Weimer only saw “a few marks” on Ragner’s arm that appeared to

be “small pock marks, hickeys, and bite marks.” Weimer specifically testified he saw these

1 State v. Ragner, 2022 MT 211, 410 Mont. 361, 521 P.3d 29. 2 The District Court concluded that Jacobi made a valid tactical decision not to call Ragner’s therapist as a witness. Addressing another basis for Ragner’s IAC claim, the District Court also concluded that Jacobi had made a valid tactical decision to decline to retain an expert witness to rebut the State’s physician expert because he did not want to emphasize the physician’s report which included Ragner’s admission to sexual contact. 3 injuries shortly after the incident, an observation that was potentially supportive of

Ragner’s theory of consent and C.M.’s aggressive behavior.

¶7 Although Jacobi testified that he was aware Ragner had spoken with Weimer hours

after the incident, he explicitly stated that he was unaware that Weimer observed injuries

to Ragner, highlighting the significance of Jacobi’s failure to verify the value of Weimer’s

potential testimony through a basic investigation. Jacobi noted Ragner provided him

photos showing only minimal discoloration on Ragner’s arm, which Jacobi considered

unpersuasive compared to C.M.’s extensive documented injuries. Jacobi explained that he

failed to investigate Weimer’s potential testimony, in part, because Ragner did not list

Weimer as a potential witness in the list he provided Jacobi prior to trial and Jacobi

assumed Weimer’s testimony would offer little value and would be contradicted by the

physical evidence and Ragner’s own statements to law enforcement.

¶8 Attorney Colin Stephens, an expert witness for Ragner at the postconviction

hearing, testified that Jacobi should have interviewed and considered calling Weimer,

despite acknowledging Weimer’s testimony was not a “silver bullet.” Stephens admitted

he had not reviewed the entire discovery file, including photographic evidence and

Ragner’s recorded admissions to Detective Ross. Stephens further testified that Jacobi’s

preparation, consisting of only approximately ten hours of client contact, fell significantly

below the recommended standard of forty hours typically necessary for serious felony

charges.

¶9 On August 6, 2024, the District Court found that Weimer’s testimony could have

shown that the sexual encounter was consensual, so Jacobi’s failure to recognize or explore

4 the significance or value of Weimer’s testimony fell below the standard of care necessary

for cases involving sexual intercourse without consent, rendering Jacobi’s performance

ineffective, thus prejudicing Ragner. The State appeals this decision.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶10 We review a district court’s decision on postconviction relief to determine whether

factual findings are clearly erroneous and conclusions of law de novo. Whitlow v. State,

2008 MT 140, ¶ 9, 343 Mont. 90, 183 P.3d 861.

¶11 We review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel under the two-prong test

established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984).

DISCUSSION

¶12 Whether the District Court erred in granting Ragner’s petition for postconviction relief due to ineffective assistance of counsel.

¶13 On appeal, the State contends that the District Court misapprehended the weight of

Weimer’s potential trial testimony and incorrectly concluded that Ragner overcame the

strong presumption that Jacobi performed within a reasonable range of professional

assistance. Further, the State argues that Ragner failed to tell Jacobi that he visited Weimer

the morning after the incident, thus giving no reasonable basis for Jacobi to know of

Weimer’s existence, so that Jacobi’s not calling Weimer as a witness did not rise to

deficient performance. Finally, the State asserts that the District Court erred in reasoning

that there was a reasonable probability that Weimer’s testimony would have led to a

different outcome at trial.

5 ¶14 Ragner argues that the District Court correctly granted his petition for

postconviction relief by reiterating his argument from his petition. Other than a few

mentions of Weimer’s potential testimony, Ragner focuses on issues the District Court

negated or declined to address—Jacobi’s failure to investigate C.W.’s claim of assault

earlier the same night,3 to retain an expert witness to address the State expert witness’s

potential biases, and to prepare sufficiently for trial and communicate with Ragner, none

of which alters our analysis of whether Ragner was prejudiced by Jacobi’s representation.

¶15 When analyzing ineffective assistance of counsel claims, we utilize the two-pronged

test articulated in Strickland. State v. Miner, 2012 MT 20, ¶ 11, 364 Mont. 1, 271 P.3d 56.

Under the Strickland test, a defendant must show that (1) counsel’s performance was

deficient, and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defendant by undermining

confidence in the outcome. Miner, ¶ 11. A defendant claiming ineffective assistance of

counsel must establish both deficient performance and resulting prejudice. Miner, ¶ 11. If

there is an insufficient showing under one prong of the Strickland test, we need not address

the other. Whitlow, ¶ 11.

¶16 Even if arguendo Jacobi’s performance was deficient, Ragner has not demonstrated

prejudice—a showing of a reasonable probability that, but for Jacobi’s error, the trial

3 Ragner did not raise the issue of Jacobi’s failure to investigate C.M.’s report of assault earlier that night at the Rockin’ R Bar, but his attorney questioned Jacobi about it at the postconviction hearing and Jacobi was unsure whether he asked C.M. about it when he interviewed her. C.M. testified at trial that while waiting outside the Rockin’ R Bar when the group left to go home, Ragner put his hands over her mouth and nose as she was trying to get her friends’ attention and would not let go but held her up against him when she tried to push him away. Her friend Marie saw Ragner holding C.M. up against the wall with his hands up around C.M’s face and neck. See Judge Trial Tr. day 2 at 176-177; Judge Trial Tr. day 1 at 77-78. 6 outcome would have differed—as required under the second prong of Strickland.

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068; State v. Walter, 2018 MT 292, ¶ 14,

393 Mont. 390, 431 P.3d 22. Weimer’s limited observation of Ragner’s injuries—only “a

few marks” on the arm—is consistent with Ragner’s own recorded admissions to Detective

Ross describing only minor injuries inflicted by C.M. Weimer’s testimony consequently

did not directly contradict or significantly alter the evidentiary picture presented to the jury,

which strongly demonstrated C.M.’s incapacity to consent. Further, Weimer did not

observe the incident and had no direct knowledge of whether C.M. consented or whether

she was capable of consenting given her state of intoxication. Most importantly, the State

presented overwhelming evidence of C.M.’s non-consent, including medical evidence of

C.M.’s severe intoxication, extensive documented injuries, and Ragner’s own admissions

that C.M. was too intoxicated to consent. Although Jacobi did not know precisely what

Weimer had observed regarding Ragner’s injuries due to his failure to investigate, even if

Weimer had testified consistently with his postconviction testimony, evidence of limited

injuries Weimer observed on Ragner would not reasonably have affected the jury’s verdict,

given the compelling evidence of C.M.’s incapacity to consent. Weimer’s testimony

regarding Ragner’s injuries could not plausibly negate the overwhelming evidence of

C.M.’s severe intoxication, extensive documented injuries, and Ragner’s prior statements,

which significantly undermined any claim of consensual sexual intercourse or injury.

Given the totality of evidence presented at trial, Weimer’s limited testimony would not

reasonably have altered the jury’s determination that C.M. was incapable of consent due to

her intoxication and therefore would not reasonably have led to a different outcome.

7 ¶17 While Jacobi’s failure to verify his assumptions about Weimer’s testimony was

professionally unreasonable, the prejudice prong of Strickland requires more than a mere

possibility of a different result—it requires a probability sufficient to undermine confidence

in the trial’s outcome. Here, that probability does not exist given the overwhelming

evidence the State presented regarding C.M.’s severe intoxication and her extensive

documented injuries. Weimer’s testimony regarding limited injuries to Ragner’s arm

simply does not undermine confidence in the jury’s verdict to the extent required by

Strickland. Given the medical evidence and Ragner’s recorded admissions, the jury had

more than sufficient basis to conclude C.M. lacked capacity to consent, independent of the

limited testimony Weimer could have offered. Therefore, although Jacobi’s performance

was deficient, Ragner has failed to satisfy the prejudice prong of the Strickland test, and

the District Court’s conclusion to the contrary is legally erroneous.

¶18 Ragner urges the Court to affirm on additional ineffective assistance arguments he

raised in the District Court, arguing that Jacobi’s failure to adequately investigate the case

and prepare Ragner to testify caused him prejudice. “[W]e may uphold a judgment on a

basis supported by the record, even if the district court applied a different rationale.” State

v. Knippel, 2018 MT 144, ¶ 16, 391 Mont. 495, 419 P.3d 1229 (citing Rooney v. City of

Cut Bank, 2012 MT 149, ¶ 25, 365 Mont. 375, 286 P.3d 241). To the extent that we have

not already addressed his additional claims, we decline to do so further. Jacobi testified in

detail at the postconviction hearing about the investigation he and his investigator had done

to prepare the defense. Aside from conclusory arguments, Ragner has not demonstrated

error in the District Court’s failure to accept his additional claims.

8 CONCLUSION

¶19 After careful consideration of the record and the arguments before us, we hold that

the District Court erred in concluding that Jacobi provided ineffective assistance of counsel

under Strickland. Whether or not Jacobi’s representation fell below an objectively

reasonable standard of professional conduct by failing to investigate Weimer’s potential

testimony adequately, we conclude there was no prejudice. Given the overwhelming

evidence supporting Ragner’s conviction, confidence in the trial outcome remains

unshaken.

¶20 Reversed and remanded for amendment of the order consistent with this opinion.

/S/ KATHERINE M BIDEGARAY

We Concur:

/S/ CORY J. SWANSON /S/ LAURIE McKINNON /S/ BETH BAKER /S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA