Submitted on Briefs: July 31, 2019
FROM: District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, In and
For the County of Park, Cause No. DV 16-118 Honorable Brenda
R. Gilbert, Presiding Judge
Appellant: Jeremy John Braulick, Self-represented, Deer
Appellee: Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Tammy K
Plubell, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Kendra
Lassiter, Park County Attorney, Livingston, Montana
Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court
Internal Operating Rules, this case is decided by memorandum
opinion and 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
Appellant Jeremy John Braulick (Braulick) appeals the denial
of his petition for postconviction relief by the Sixth
Judicial District Court, Park County. We affirm.
In December of 2011, Braulick brutally attacked his Mother
and Stepfather in their home, where he was temporarily
staying, by hitting, choking, and stabbing them multiple
times with a knife. State v. Braulick, 2015 MT 147,
¶¶ 3-6, 379 Mont. 302, 293 P.3d 508. The victims,
who somehow survived the attacks, testified at trial.
Braulick was convicted of two counts of attempted deliberate
homicide and was sentenced to 90 years in Montana State
Prison. Braulick, ¶ 12.
On appeal, this Court affirmed Braulick's convictions.
Braulick, ¶ 26. Braulick filed a postconviction
petition stating fifteen grounds for relief under three
general claims, including ineffective assistance of counsel,
prosecutorial misconduct, and cruel and unusual punishment
arising from the manner of his detention pending trial. The
District Court addressed each ground for relief and denied
and dismissed the petition, concluding in part that
Braulick's ineffective assistance of counsel and
prosecutorial misconduct claims were procedurally barred
under § 46-21-105, MCA, because the claims should have
been brought by Braulick in his direct appeal. The District
Court reasoned that Braulick's cruel and unusual
punishment claim was a separate matter and not appropriately
raised in a postconviction relief proceeding. Braulick
appeals, challenging the District Court's determination
that his claims were procedurally barred or inappropriately
This Court reviews a district court's denial of a
petition for postconviction relief to determine whether its
factual findings are clearly erroneous and whether its legal
conclusions are correct. Rose v. State, 2013 MT 161,
¶ 15, 370 Mont. 398, 304 P.3d 387 (citing Rukes v.
State, 2013 MT 56, ¶ 8, 369 Mont. 215, 297 P.3d
1195). Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are mixed
questions of law and fact which we review de novo.
Rose, ¶ 15 (citing Miller v. State,
2012 MT 131, ¶ 9, 365 Mont. 264, 280 P.3d 272).
In a postconviction proceeding, a criminal defendant may
raise issues relating to his conviction or sentence if he had
"no adequate remedy of appeal." Section
46-21-101(1), MCA. Accordingly, § 46-21-105, MCA,
(2) When a petitioner has been afforded the opportunity for a
direct appeal of the petitioner's conviction, grounds for
relief that were or could reasonably have been raised on
direct appeal may not be raised, considered, or decided in a
[postconviction relief proceeding]. . . .
(3) For purposes of this section, "grounds for
relief" includes all legal and factual issues that were
or could have been raised in support of petitioner's
claim for relief.
assistance of counsel claims will be reviewed on direct
appeal from conviction "when the record is sufficient
for review." State v. Baker, 2013 MT 113,
¶ 42, 370 Mont. 43, 300 P.3d 696. However, when the face
of the record does not reveal "why" counsel took a
particular course of action, the matter is appropriately
raised in postconviction proceedings. Baker, ¶
42 (citing State v. Briscoe, 2012 MT 152, ¶ 10,
365 Mont. 383, 282 P.3d 657). Courts determine whether
counsel was ineffective by application of the two-part test
adopted by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland
v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984).
Whitlow v. State, 2008 MT 140, ¶ 10, 343 Mont.
90, 183 P.3d 861. Under the Strickland test, the
defendant must prove "(1) that counsel's performance
was deficient, and (2) that counsel's deficient
performance prejudiced the defense." Whitlow,