Background
Buckleycole Randall Ackerman camped with three younger coworkers from a private wildland fire company in July 2024. During the night, Ackerman displayed and dry fired a pistol, made a statement about “going kamikaze” if anyone made a move on him, and dry fired the pistol at B.M. while holding the magazine separately. The coworkers testified that Ackerman threatened to kill or hurt them if they reported his firearm possession. B.M. testified that he was afraid and could not sleep.
The coworkers reported the incident to a supervisor two days later. A sheriff’s deputy found the pistol during a probationary search of Ackerman’s gear and arrested him. Following a bench trial, the District Court convicted Ackerman of one count of assault with a weapon and two counts of intimidation. It imposed concurrent seven-year sentences with five years suspended, consecutive to a separate Lake County sentence.
Representing himself on appeal, Ackerman broadly challenged the witnesses, his trial counsel, and the District Court. The Montana Supreme Court construed his briefing as raising sufficiency-of-the-evidence and ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims.
The Court’s Holding
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, it held that a rational factfinder could conclude that Ackerman used the pistol to cause B.M. reasonably to fear serious bodily injury. B.M.’s testimony that Ackerman repeatedly pointed and dry fired the pistol at him, together with Ackerman’s statement about “going kamikaze,” was sufficient to support the assault-with-a-weapon conviction.
The Court also held that the evidence supported the two intimidation convictions. All three coworkers testified that Ackerman threatened to kill or hurt them if they disclosed that he possessed a gun, and the District Court found that he made those threats. The Supreme Court declined to reweigh that testimony merely because Ackerman denied it.
Ackerman’s ineffective-assistance allegations were conclusory and did not identify record-based errors reviewable on direct appeal. After considering his accusations against counsel and the District Court, the Supreme Court concluded that, to the extent they appeared in the record, Ackerman failed to prove deficient representation or judicial impropriety. The Court issued the decision as a noncitable memorandum opinion that does not serve as precedent.
Key Takeaways
- Testimony that Ackerman pointed and dry fired a pistol at B.M., causing fear of serious injury, was sufficient to sustain the assault-with-a-weapon conviction.
- Testimony that Ackerman threatened coworkers with death or injury if they reported his firearm possession was sufficient to sustain two intimidation convictions.
- Conclusory ineffective-assistance allegations that were not based on the trial record could not be reviewed on direct appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates Montana’s deferential standard for reviewing evidentiary sufficiency: appellate courts view the evidence in the prosecution’s favor and do not substitute their credibility assessments for those of the trial court. It also reinforces that ineffective-assistance claims raised on direct appeal must be grounded in the existing record.
Because the Court designated the ruling a memorandum opinion under its internal operating rules, the decision is noncitable and does not establish precedent.