In re Armstrong

Montana Supreme Court

In re Armstrong

538 P.2d 352, 166 Mont. 544, 1975 Mont. LEXIS 668

CourtMontana Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 24, 1975

DocketNo. 13106

StatusPublished

This text of 538 P.2d 352 (In re Armstrong) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Armstrong, 538 P.2d 352, 166 Mont. 544, 1975 Mont. LEXIS 668 (Mo. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

This is a pro se application by an inmate of the state prison. The inmate was convicted in Yellowstone County on April 21, 1975 of deliberate homicide and robbery. The papers included with the application reveal that a notice of appeal dated June 3, 1975, was filed. An affidavit forma pauperis was also filed.

The collection of copies of documents and news articles do not make a sensible or comprehensive application to this Court. [545]*545They reveal, though, that an', appeal is being perfected by appointed defense counsel. They also reveal • that petitioner, Armstrong does not want to be represented by that counsel. They also reveal that petitioner Armstrong has filed the same papers with the district court.

This Court, at this time, denies relief without prejudice to future applications. A copy of this Order shall be mailed to District Court Judge Charles Luedke and to John Adams; Esq., counsel of record, for their attention, as well as to petitioner Armstrong.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

This is a pro se application by an inmate of the state prison. The inmate was convicted in Yellowstone County on April 21, 1975 of deliberate homicide and robbery. The papers included with the application reveal that a notice of appeal dated June 3, 1975, was filed. An affidavit forma pauperis was also filed.

The collection of copies of documents and news articles do not make a sensible or comprehensive application to this Court. [545]*545They reveal, though, that an', appeal is being perfected by appointed defense counsel. They also reveal • that petitioner, Armstrong does not want to be represented by that counsel. They also reveal that petitioner Armstrong has filed the same papers with the district court.

This Court, at this time, denies relief without prejudice to future applications. A copy of this Order shall be mailed to District Court Judge Charles Luedke and to John Adams; Esq., counsel of record, for their attention, as well as to petitioner Armstrong.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

538 P.2d 352, 166 Mont. 544, 1975 Mont. LEXIS 668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-armstrong-mont-1975.