In re Mozer

Montana Supreme Court

In re Mozer

511 P.2d 1320, 162 Mont. 540, 1973 Mont. LEXIS 566

CourtMontana Supreme Court

DecidedMay 23, 1973

DocketNo. 12523

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 511 P.2d 1320 (In re Mozer) 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 Mozer, 511 P.2d 1320, 162 Mont. 540, 1973 Mont. LEXIS 566 (Mo. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMO OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Original Proceeding.

Petitioner, appearing pro se, has filed with this Court his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging his confinement in. the Cascade County jail is in violation of the United States Constitution and the Montana Constitution. It appears from the petition that previously a petition for a writ of habeas corpus had been filed in the district court and that he has court appointed counsel. It has long been a rule of this Court that we do not accept pro se petitions when the applicant is represented by counsel because counsel can properly present such matters and should be permitted to do so without interference from his client. See Taylor v. State of Montana, 159 Mont. 535, 499 P.2d 806.

For this reason this pro se petition is dismissed and the relief requested denied.

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

MEMO OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Original Proceeding.

Petitioner, appearing pro se, has filed with this Court his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging his confinement in. the Cascade County jail is in violation of the United States Constitution and the Montana Constitution. It appears from the petition that previously a petition for a writ of habeas corpus had been filed in the district court and that he has court appointed counsel. It has long been a rule of this Court that we do not accept pro se petitions when the applicant is represented by counsel because counsel can properly present such matters and should be permitted to do so without interference from his client. See Taylor v. State of Montana, 159 Mont. 535, 499 P.2d 806.

For this reason this pro se petition is dismissed and the relief requested denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

511 P.2d 1320, 162 Mont. 540, 1973 Mont. LEXIS 566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mozer-mont-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack