The Montana Supreme Court upheld a district court opinion in late August in the homicide case against Branden Miesmer.

Miesmer was charged in 2015 with deliberate homicide after injecting methamphetamine and shooting Cody Bruyere in the face at point-blank range, according to court documents.

He admitted to committing the crime, telling detectives in an interview after his arrest, “I won’t bullshit you, man, I’ll plead guilty to all charges. I won’t prolong, I won’t get a lawyer. What I did I did.”

Eventually, Miesmer entered a guilty plea for the murder that occured in the 700 block of 7th Street North on Sept. 7, 2015.

He was sentenced to 100 years without parole.

Montana Supreme Court vacates jury verdict from 2009 child abuse civil case, sends case back to district court for new jury trial

Later, he motioned the court to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing ineffective counsel and that he didn’t understand the details of his plea.

After committing the murder, Miesmer fled in a car reaching speeds of more than 110 miles per hour on the interstate north of Helena. Officers pursued, but lost sight of his car, which they later found stopped next to another car at the intersection of Lincoln Road and Hauser Dam Road, where he hijacked a smaller station wagon at gunpoint., according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Miesmer evaded law enforcement for three days before being apprehended on Sept. 9 in Helena, according to local news reports at the time.

In 2018, he was sentenced in federal court to 120 months in prison, five years of supervised release and $100 special assessment to run consecutive to his state deliberate homicide conviction.

A district court judge issued an order in March 2022 denying Miesmer’s motion.

He appealed that decision to the Montana Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court’s order denying Miesmer’s request.

In their order, Supreme Court justices review the history of Miesmer’s case.

CCSO, Crime Stoppers offering $10K reward for information into 2022 homicide

In January 2016, he filed a notice of intent to assert justifiable use of force and/or duress as a defense and moved to suppress evidence of his admission of guilt to detectives, which was rendered moot by his guilty plea.

The following month, he told his attorneys, public defenders Mark Frisbie and Steven Scott, that he was open to any plea that had him in prison for less than 60 years, so his attorneys told the state he’d plead guilty in exchange for a sentence recommendation of 80 years with 20 suspended, according to court documents.

The state drafted a plea agreement with a 100-year sentence and no recommendation for a parole restriction. The document “expressly advised that the plea agreement would not be binding on the district court’s ultimate sentencing decision,” according to court documents.

In February 2016, Miesmer met with his attorneys who discussed the terms of the states offer and Frisbie testified that he discussed the details with Miesmer, who in his appeal to the Montana Supreme Court said that Frisbie only provided a summary and was not aware of the language stating the agreement wasn’t binding on the court’s sentence, according to the order. During that meeting, Miesmer said he’d plead guilty, forgoing a plea deal, which his attorneys could be favorable to his sentencing.

Driver in 2023 police chase, shooting sentenced

At the end of that month, Miesmer asked the court to set a change of plea hearing that was scheduled for March 18, 2016, but his relationship with his attorneys deteriorated over that month and they expected Miesmer to request a change of counsel at the hearing, which was pushed to March 25, 2016 while attorneys attempted to work with Miesmer, according to court documents.

Before the March hearing began, Frisbie discussed two documents with Miesmer, the notice of intent to make an open plea and an acknowledgment of waiver by guilty plea, according to court documents.

The notice states “the defendant makes this plea of guilty without the written assurances of a written plea agreement with the county attorney …defendant recognizes that sentencing in this matter is entirely within the discretion of the presiding district court judge, subject only to the limits of statutory and case law. The defendant will not be able to withdraw his plea of guilty after sentencing…the defendant understands that there is no plea agreement: the county attorney is not bound to recommend any sentence at the sentencing hearing.”

The waiver included language about Miesmer’s potential sentence and “I am not suffering any emotional or mental disability from any cause including mental disease or defect and am not impaired from taking any drugs, alcohol, or prescription medication. I fully understand what I am doing. The following are the facts that cause me to plead guilty. I believe I am guilty of the offense because I did the following: I purposely or knowingly shot Cody Bruyere,” according to court documents.

Miesmer signed both documents and during the hearing, the judge reiterated that he was pleading guilty without an agreement that would require prosecutors to make any particular sentencing recommendation, that the court wasn’t bound by any sentencing recommendations from the defense and that Miesmer wouldn’t be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea, according to court documents. He also stated during the hearing that he was satisfied with his attorneys.

In April 2016, Miesmer sent messages from jail asking the court to remove Frisbie and Scott from his case and to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing they were ineffective because they didn’t get a second psychiatric evaluation; didn’t explain the purpose of the March 25 hearing; refused to provide him with legal materials or get college students to help with research; didn’t discuss a plan for a lesser charge of mitigated deliberate homicide; didn’t visit him enough in jail; among other offenses, according to court documents.

Miesmer’s first psychiatric evaluation found him fit to proceed.

In June 2016, the court held a hearing about Miesmer’s counsel and both responded to his complaints with what the court found as “credible responses.”

Scott testified during that hearing that Miesmer suggested the open plea and the court denied Miesmer’s request to remove his attorneys ruling that his complaints were “only tactical and strategic disagreements and that they did not rise to the level of a total breakdown in client-lawyer communications.”

Later that month, Miesmer filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea and was still represented by Frisbie and scott, but he changed his mind again and in October 2016, moved for a sentencing date.

During his November 2016 sentencing hearing, Miesmer confirmed he wanted to withdraw his then pending motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

According to court documents, the judge said, “before we proceed further with that, I need to find out and make sure that it’s abundantly clear on the record that you are, in fact, withdrawing your previous motion to withdraw your guilty plea” to which Miesmer responded, “yes, your honor.”

He was sentenced that day to 100 years without parole.

In March 2017, the Montana Supreme Court allowed him to file an out-of-time appeal and he asked the district court to withdraw his guilty plea.

In January 2018, the Montana Supreme Court dismissed his first appeal and the following month he renewed his plea withdrawal motion at district court.

On March 2, 2022, the district court denied his motion finding that Miesmer “knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently took the risk [of an open plea], does not like the result, and now wants to start over. The law does not require this, and the court declines to permit it.”

In his appeal to the Montana Supreme Court, Miesmer argues that his attorneys didn’t adequately inform him of the 2016 open plea, rushed him to sign the notice and waiver, and the court didn’t advise him arguing that because of those issues, he didn’t make his plea knowingly and voluntarily.

The Montana Supreme Court found that the district court was correct in finding he had made his plea knowingly and voluntarily and that Miesmer’s counsel adequately advised him.

“We are not convinced that a mistake was made,” Justice Mike McGrath wrote in the court’s unanimous opinion.

The district court restricted parole for Miesmer, which he argued in his appeal was improper, but the Montana Supreme Court found it to be adequately justified.

“The vacillations in Miesmer’s defense strategy do not suggest to us deficiencies with counsel. The record reflects that his attorneys adequately apprised him of the advantages and disadvantages that pleading open portended compared with a plea agreement or not pleading at all. Before he signed the notice of intent and waiver, Miesmer already had extensive discussions about his options with his attorneys. When he waived his rights, Miesmer knew that he was forfeiting the right to assert affirmative defenses and argue for lesser-included offenses. Miesmer was not rushed, and neither Frisbie nor the district court indicated that the status hearing was his last opportunity to plead guilty. Finally, Miesmer was informed that the district court had the discretion to restrict parole: Frisbie and Scott met with Miesmer at jail shortly after the state counter-offered its draft plea agreement. The draft plea agreement advised Miesmer in two separate places that the district court retained discretion to restrict parole regardless of his plea. Miesmer made the decision to waive his rights and plead,” McGrath wrote. “The district court did not clearly err in its finding that Miesmer was a sophisticated defendant who could effectively manipulate procedure to achieve certain outcomes. Nor did it err in finding that Miesmer’s demeanor throughout the proceedings did not indicate remorse, a genuine interest in taking accountability, or that he could not be rehabilitated to a meaningful degree.”