STATE OF MONTANA v. BRANDON KALE BAGNELL (2025)

¶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 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 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 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.

JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA

We Concur: CORY J. SWANSON LAURIE McKINNON BETH BAKER JIM RICE