State v. B. Bagnell

2025 MT 81N, 566 P.3d 1108

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Decided: April 22, 2025
• Docket: DA 24-0464
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

04/22/2025

DA 24-0464 Case Number: DA 24-0464

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2025 MT 81N

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

BRANDON KALE BAGNELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twentieth Judicial District, In and For the County of Lake, Cause No. DC-15-355 Honorable Molly Owen, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Brandon Kale Bagnell, Self Represented, Shelby, Montana

For Appellee:

Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Mardell Ployhar, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana

James Lapotka, Lake County Attorney, Brendan McQuillan, Chief Deputy County Attorney, Polson, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: March 12, 2025

Decided: April 22, 2025

Filed: ir,-6‘A•-if __________________________________________ Clerk Justice James Jeremiah Shea delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating

Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion, shall not be cited and does not serve

as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this Court’s

quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports.

¶2 Brandon Kale Bagnell appeals from the Twentieth Judicial District Court, Lake

County’s July 23, 2024 order denying his motion for a new trial without holding an

evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

¶3 A jury convicted Bagnell of Felony Stalking on June 6, 2017. Bagnell appealed that

conviction, and we affirmed. State v. Bagnell, No. DA 18-0160, 2020 MT 234N, ¶ 15,

2020 Mont. LEXIS 2317. Bagnell filed a petition for post-conviction relief on

December 10, 2021, which the District Court denied on December 23, 2021. Bagnell

appealed that denial, and we once again affirmed. Bagnell v. State, No. DA 22-0056, 2023

MT 15N, ¶ 19, 2023 Mont. LEXIS 63.

¶4 On January 12, 2024, approximately six-and-a-half years after his conviction,

Bagnell moved for a new trial. In his motion, Bagnell argued that that the Clerk of the

District Court had failed to comply with § 3-15-405, MCA, in selecting the jury panel for

his case. On January 18, 2024, Bagnell filed a motion seeking to subpoena the Lake County

Clerk of District Court in support of his motion for a new trial.

¶5 On July 23, 2024, the District Court denied Bagnell’s motion for a new trial without

holding an evidentiary hearing. The District Court determined that Bagnell’s motion was

2 untimely and that he had not presented sufficient evidence to prove that a new trial would

be in the interests of justice.

¶6 We generally review a district court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing for a clear

abuse of discretion. State v. Schulke, 2005 MT 77, ¶ 10, 326 Mont. 390, 109 P.3d 744.

However, a district court’s determination whether a statutorily or constitutionally

mandated evidentiary hearing is required is a legal question that we review de novo.

Schulke, ¶ 28. We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a motion for a

new trial. State v. Hillious, 2025 MT 53, ¶ 13, 412 Mont. 72, ___ P.3d ___. We review

de novo a trial court’s interpretation of the Sixth Amendment to the United States

Constitution. Hillious, ¶ 13.

¶7 Bagnell argues that the District Court was required to grant his motion for a

subpoena in support of his motion for a new trial because it was essential to vindicating his

constitutional right to an impartial jury. We have held that a district court is not required

to hold an evidentiary hearing or permit introduction of new evidence in the

post-conviction context absent “unique circumstances.” Herman v. State, 2006 MT 7, ¶ 50,

330 Mont. 267, 127 P.3d 422; see also Heath v. State, 2009 MT 7, ¶ 24, 348 Mont. 361,

202 P.3d 118 (holding that the death of petitioner’s trial counsel before he filed a court

ordered response to a petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel constituted “unique

circumstances” requiring an evidentiary hearing).

¶8 Bagnell argues that he presented sufficient evidence in his motion for a new trial

that the jury selection in his case did not comply with § 3-15-405, MCA. Section 3-15-405,

MCA, directs the clerk of court to “serve notice by mail on the persons drawn as jurors and

3 require the persons to respond by mail as to their qualifications to serve as jurors.” If a

person does not respond, the clerk is directed to “certify the failure to the sheriff, who shall

serve the notice personally on the person.” Section 3-15-405, MCA. We recently held that

a defendant who moves for a new trial based on a violation of a § 3-15-405, MCA, must

present sufficient “evidence that the statutory violation rendered [his or her] jury selection

process substantially noncompliant” or that a substantially compliant process nevertheless

resulted in “prejudice to [the defendant’s] substantial rights.” Hillious, ¶¶ 28, 32.

¶9 Bagnell relies on three sources of evidence to support both of his arguments. First,

he points to the order of the Eighth Judicial District Court in State v. Hinkle, Cascade

County Cause No. 22-242, vacating all jury trials in that district. In its order, that court

determined “it [was] likely that the faulty method [then] employed in [Cascade] County

[was] also being used elsewhere in Montana.” What Bagnell fails to acknowledge is the

court’s determination elsewhere in the order that the “faulty method” was employed as a

result of a convention that took place “sometime in 2022,” and that the method employed

by the clerk prior to 2022 “comported with § 3-15-405, MCA.” Bagnell’s reliance on a

district court’s determination of a faulty procedure in a different county that began five

years after his own trial does not persuade us that he is in the unique circumstance of not

knowing whether his jury was properly selected. His argument that such attenuated

evidence supports his theory that the jury selection in his trial was substantially

noncompliant or prejudicial is equally unpersuasive.

¶10 Bagnell submits a Gallatin County Sheriff’s Office Facebook post from sometime

around October 9, 2023, reminding prospective jurors that if they did not return their jury

4 questionnaires, they would be served in person, and a filing in State v. Ragner, Gallatin

County Cause No. 19-189-B, alleging a violation of § 3-15-405, MCA. Bagnell cites to no

authority for the proposition that evidence of the State’s compliance with the jury selection

statute or allegations of noncompliance made in an unrelated case constitute sufficient

evidence to support a motion for an evidentiary hearing or a new trial. It is not this Court’s

obligation to develop parties’ arguments for them, State v. Flowers, 2004 MT 37, ¶ 44, 320

Mont. 49, 86 P.3d 3, so we decline to find that either of these exhibits support Bagnell’s

arguments.

¶11 Because Bagnell did not include sufficient factual allegations in his motion to

suggest that the Lake County clerk employed a statutorily deficient method to select his

2017 jury, the District Court did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion for a new

trial without holding an evidentiary hearing.

¶12 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our

Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. This appeal presents

no constitutional issues, no issues of first impression, and does not establish new precedent

or modify existing precedent. Affirmed.

/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA

We Concur:

/S/ CORY J. SWANSON /S/ LAURIE McKINNON /S/ BETH BAKER /S/ JIM RICE