Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Mario Gordon appealed a judgment that denied his petition for post-conviction review in which he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. In the underlying case, Gordon had pleaded guilty to multiple charges pursuant to a plea agreement with a sentencing cap. This was based on his attorney's advice that Gordon would likely receive a sentence significantly more lenient than the one the court ultimately imposed. Gordon's attorney had advised him that if he agreed to a twelve-year cap, the sentence would likely be eight years without suspension or ten years with a portion of the sentence suspended. However, the court imposed a sentence of twelve years without suspension, leading Gordon to argue that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court held that Gordon's counsel did not provide ineffective assistance. The Court found that the attorney's advice was a strategic decision that was not "manifestly unreasonable," as Gordon was aware that he could receive up to a twelve-year sentence but chose to proceed with the twelve-year cap option in hopes of obtaining probation. The Court also found that Gordon could not demonstrate that his plea was involuntary as he was informed during the plea colloquy that he could be sentenced to up to twelve years. Furthermore, the Court found that Gordon's attorney was not required to object to the sentence when it was imposed, as Gordon had acknowledged that he understood the terms of his plea agreement. Therefore, the Court affirmed the judgment denying Gordon's post-conviction review petition. View "Gordon v. State" on Justia Law

In the State of Maine v. Dale F. Thistle, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court upheld the conviction of Dale Thistle, an attorney, for theft by misapplication of property. Thistle was hired by Donna Friend, personal representative of the estate of Gilman Friend, to explore a potential wrongful death suit against emergency responders. Thistle negotiated a settlement of $390,000, which he deposited into his Interest on Lawyer’s Trust Account (IOLTA). Thistle then misappropriated the funds, failing to distribute the owed amount to Gilman's children, and instead frequently withdrawing money for personal expenses.Thistle appealed his conviction on several grounds, including that the trial court erred by not granting his motion for acquittal due to a statute of limitations defense, the court erred in its instructions to the jury on the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct, the State committed prosecutorial error, and that the evidence was insufficient to convict him.The Supreme Judicial Court rejected all of Thistle's arguments. The court found that Thistle had waived his statute of limitations defense by admitting facts that tolled the limitations period. The court also held that the prosecutor's statements during closing arguments did not constitute error. Finally, the court ruled that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that Thistle intentionally or recklessly failed to pay the settlement funds to Gilman's children and used the money as his own, thereby committing theft by misapplication of property. View "State v. Thistle" on Justia Law

In Maine, former President Donald J. Trump submitted a petition for his candidacy for the Republican Party’s presidential primary. Three challengers subsequently claimed that Trump was disqualified from running because he had previously sworn to support the U.S. Constitution as President and then engaged in insurrection, which they argued precluded him from holding office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Secretary of State held a hearing and decided that Trump was not qualified to appear on the ballot. Trump appealed this decision to the Superior Court, which remanded the matter back to the Secretary of State for a new ruling after the Supreme Court reaches a decision in a related case. The Secretary of State and the three challengers appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, which dismissed the appeal as interlocutory and not justiciable, holding that it was not from a final judgment. The court reasoned that uncertainties regarding issues of federal law pervaded the proceedings and were likely to require additional proceedings. The court deemed that an immediate review would likely result in an advisory opinion and could cause additional delay that the existing interlocutory order might avoid. View "Trump v. Secretary of State" on Justia Law

In the case before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, Dana A. Healey appealed his conviction for domestic violence assault. Healey argued that the trial court exceeded its discretion by not allowing him or his attorneys to conduct a voir dire examination of the jury and by denying his requests to cross-examine the victim about her recanted domestic violence allegation against another person and the text messages that she sent to Healey after his arrest. Healey contended that these rulings violated his constitutional rights to a jury trial and to confront witnesses against him.The court acknowledged Healey's concerns but ultimately affirmed the trial court's decision. The court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Healey’s request to cross-examine the victim about her recanting a domestic violence allegation against another person. The court also found that the trial court erred in excluding at least one of the victim’s text messages to Healey: the message stating, “We’re even.” However, the court determined that, despite this error, there was sufficient, independent evidence to support the jury's verdict.The court based its decision on the testimony of the responding officer and a witness who saw the incident, as well as the 9-1-1 call made by the witness. These pieces of evidence, the court concluded, provided sufficient support for the jury's verdict, regardless of the excluded text messages. Therefore, the court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the excluded evidence would not have affected the jury's verdict. As such, the court affirmed Healey's conviction and sentence. View "State of Maine v. Dana A. Healey" on Justia Law

In the case before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, George E. Gooley appealed and Danielle L. Fradette cross-appealed from the District Court’s judgments on their post-divorce and post-trial motions. The court held that the specific provisions concerning parent-child contact and the computation of Gooley’s income, the determination of Gooley’s imputed income, and the award of Fradette’s attorney fees could not be meaningfully reviewed without clear and specific findings. Therefore, those parts of the judgment were vacated and sent back to the lower court for further findings.The couple had divorced and had two minor children. There were several modifications to the divorce judgment, most notably in relation to the children's contact schedule with each parent. Later, Gooley filed a motion for contempt, alleging that Fradette was not following the contact schedule set by the court. Fradette filed a motion for post-judgment relief, requesting modifications to parental rights and responsibilities and asking for attorney fees. Fradette later amended her motion to add her decision to move from Maine to Massachusetts as a basis for modification. The court approved the amendment and held a four-day hearing on the parties’ post-judgment motions.The court found that Fradette met her burden of demonstrating that there had been a substantial change in circumstances due to her plan to relocate to Massachusetts, and granted her motion for post-judgment relief in part. The court awarded Fradette primary residency of the children and the right of final decision-making for the children’s education, and awarded the parties shared parental rights and responsibilities in all other respects. Gooley was awarded contact with the children on specific weekends and Wednesday evenings. The court also ordered Gooley to pay Fradette attorney fees of $30,000.On appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgments in part but vacated the portions of the judgment related to parent-child contact, computation of Gooley’s income, determination of Gooley’s imputed income, and the award of Fradette’s attorney fees. The court remanded the case for further findings on these matters. View "Gooley v. Fradette" on Justia Law

In the case before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, the dispute involved U.S. Bank, N.A. (the Bank) and Charles D. Finch. The Bank had a mortgage on Finch's property due to a loan he had taken out. When Finch defaulted on the loan, the Bank initiated foreclosure proceedings. However, the Superior Court ruled in favor of Finch, finding that the Bank's notice of default did not comply with the requirements of the Maine foreclosure statute, specifically 14 M.R.S. § 6111. Following this, Finch asked the court to rule that the Bank's mortgage was unenforceable and to order the Bank to discharge the mortgage. The court agreed with Finch, citing the Maine Supreme Judicial Court's decision in Pushard v. Bank of America.The Bank appealed this decision, arguing that the Pushard decision should be overturned, and that even if it cannot foreclose on the property, it should not be required to discharge the mortgage.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court, revisiting its decision in Pushard, determined that a lender cannot accelerate a loan balance or commence a foreclosure action without having the statutory and contractual right to do so. This effectively overruled the holding in Pushard that a lender could accelerate the note balance by filing a foreclosure action, even if they lacked the statutory right to do so.The court found that when a lender fails to prove it has issued a valid notice of default or that the borrower breached the contract, the parties are returned to the positions they held before the filing of the action. Therefore, a subsequent foreclosure action based on a different notice of default and a different allegation of default would assert a different claim and would not be barred.The court ultimately vacated the judgment requiring the Bank to discharge the mortgage and remanded the case for entry of a judgment in the Bank's favor on Finch's complaint. The judgment dismissing the Bank's unjust enrichment counterclaim was affirmed. The court concluded that while a lender must strictly comply with the statutory notice requirements in a foreclosure action, a borrower is not automatically entitled to a "free house" if the lender makes a mistake in the notice of default. View "Finch v. U.S. Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

The case involves Billie S., who appealed from a judgment by the District Court (Bangor, Roberts, J.) which terminated her parental rights to her children pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2) (2023). The mother argued that the judgment did not provide sufficient independent findings of fact to support the termination of her parental rights. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court agreed with the mother's contention.The trial court based its decision on evidence from various sources including the Department of Health and Human Services caseworker's testimony, guardian ad litem reports, and the petitions for termination. However, the judgment simply incorporated the entirety of these sources as its "specific findings" instead of providing an independent articulation of the specific facts that formed the basis of the court’s ultimate findings regarding the mother’s parental unfitness and the best interests of the children.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court held that these were not the “specific findings of fact” required by Rule 52(a) or prior decisions. The court could not infer factual findings in a termination case when the adequacy of the findings was the issue at hand. As a result, the court vacated the judgment due to its lack of adequate findings that would sufficiently inform the mother and the court of the reasoning behind the decision. The case was remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "In re Children of Billie S." on Justia Law

In the case before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, the Office of the Public Advocate (the appellant) contested a decision by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) that approved an amended special rate contract between Bangor Natural Gas Company and Bucksport Generation LLC. The appellant argued that the PUC applied the wrong standard in reviewing the contract, which led to unjust or unreasonable rates and undue or unreasonable preference for Bucksport Generation over other Bangor Gas customers. The appellant also argued that the PUC's order should be vacated because it relied on evidence not included in the record.The court disagreed with the appellant's first argument and found the second argument waived, thereby affirming the PUC's order. The court held that the PUC was within its discretion to apply different standards of review for special rate contracts depending on the type of utility service at issue. Given the competitive nature of the natural gas market in Maine, the court deemed the PUC's standard reasonable.Regarding the rates, the court found that the PUC’s approval of the special rate contract did not result in unjust, unreasonable, or discriminatory rates for other Bangor Gas customers. The court noted that incentivizing continued financial contributions from Bucksport Generation to Bangor Gas’s fixed costs was justifiable.Finally, the court ruled that the appellant's argument about the PUC's failure to create an evidentiary record was waived due to the appellant's failure to raise the issue at the PUC level. However, the court acknowledged the appellant's point and advised the PUC to clarify its regulations regarding what materials constitute the evidentiary record in proceedings where an evidentiary hearing is not held. View "Office of the Public Advocate v. Public Utilities Commission" on Justia Law

In this case, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a lower court's decision to terminate a mother's parental rights to her two children. The mother appealed the termination of her rights, asserting that she was deprived of effective legal counsel during the proceedings. The lower court had determined that the children were in jeopardy due to the mother's chronic alcohol abuse, unsafe behavior, and poor decision-making, which included permitting a convicted sex offender to care for the children unsupervised. Despite repeated opportunities, the mother failed to demonstrate sufficient improvement to safely care for her children.The mother also proposed that her own mother or aunt should be appointed as permanency guardians for the children. However, the court found that neither individual was suitable for this role due to their loyalties to the mother and lack of objectivity regarding her addiction and reckless behavior. As such, the court determined that adoption was in the children's best interests.On appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court found no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court noted that the attorney had adequately presented the mother's case and had advocated for the possibility of a familial permanency guardianship. The court concluded that the mother's claim of ineffective assistance did not meet the threshold for a prima facie case, as there was no evidence of serious incompetency, inefficiency, or inattention from her attorney, nor was there any indication that the outcome of the trial was unjust. Consequently, the decision to terminate the mother's parental rights was upheld. View "In re Children of Shannevia Y." on Justia Law

In this case, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court was called to determine issues regarding the distribution of assets under a will and trust, and personal jurisdiction. The case arose from a dispute between two brothers, John R. Luongo and Michael A. Luongo Jr., regarding their mother's estate and a trust she established. The Superior Court had previously divided the property of the estate between the brothers and dismissed two counts of John's complaint, arguing that it could not exercise personal jurisdiction over Michael.Upon review, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court determined that the Superior Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to distribute the assets under the will and the related trust. The authority to resolve disputes over the distribution of assets under a will rests solely with the Probate Court. Therefore, the court vacated the lower court's order distributing the assets of the estate.Regarding personal jurisdiction, the court found that the Superior Court correctly concluded that it did not have personal jurisdiction over Michael for claims related to the trust. This was due to the fact that the trust was established as a Massachusetts trust with its principal place of administration in Massachusetts and the process to transfer the trust’s administration to Maine was not completed by either trustee.The court affirmed the dismissal of Counts 1 and 3 of John’s complaint, related to the trust, but vacated the judgment in all other respects, including Michael’s counterclaim for conversion. The case was remanded for dismissal of the remaining counts of John’s complaint and Michael’s counterclaim for conversion. View "Luongo v. Luongo" on Justia Law