ineffective assistance of counsel post conviction granting new appeal

2007 MT 307
CHESTER LAWRENCE PRICE,v.
STATE OF MONTANA,
Did Price’s appellate defense counsel render ineffective assistance by failing to raise on direct appeal the issue of Price’s absence from numerous in-chambers trial proceedings?
Appellate counsel should have raised the issue on direct appeal, and his failure to do so constituted prejudicial error.
Accordingly, we reverse the denial of the postconviction petition on the grounds discussed herein and remand for entry of an order by the District Court granting Price an opportunity for a new appeal upon this issue. The entry of the order by the District Court will initiate the time and procedural requirements for completion of the appellate process.

toll on equitable grounds the one-year time bar contained in § 46-21-102, MCA

2008 MT 226
GEORGE H. DAVIS,v.
STATE OF MONTANA,
Did the District Court correctly deny Davis’s motion to toll on equitable grounds the one-year time bar in § 46-21-102, MCA, so that Davis could file a petition for post-conviction relief?
Although the District Court provided alternative rationales for its ruling, it ultimately decided Davis’s motion solely on the basis that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. In light of our decision and its changes to the law regarding the one-year time bar contained in § 46-21-102, MCA, we deem it appropriate to remand this matter to allow the District Court to consider in the first instance Davis’s motion to toll on equitable grounds the one-year time bar contained in § 46-21-102, MCA. The District Court must determine whether the failure to toll on equitable grounds would work “‘a clear miscarriage of justice, one so obvious’” that the imposition of the time bar would compromise the integrity of the judicial process. State v. Redcrow, 1999 MT 95, ¶ 34, 294 Mont. 252, ¶ 34, 980 P.2d 622, ¶ 34 (quoting Gray, 274Mont. at 1, 908 P.2d at 1352).
Reversed and remanded.

Ineffective assistance of counsel hearing

2002 MT 187
LUKE SORAICH,v.
STATE OF MONTANA,
Whether the District Court abused its discretion in summarily dismissing Soraich's petition for postconviction relief.
we hold that the District Court abused its discretion in summarily dismissing Soraich's petition for postconviction relief and we remand to the District Court for an evidentiary hearing to address the second prong of the Strickland test.
Reversed and remanded.