In Re Petition of Allen

Montana Supreme Court

In Re Petition of Allen

507 P.2d 1049, 161 Mont. 547, 1973 Mont. LEXIS 636

CourtMontana Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 23, 1973

Docket12477

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 507 P.2d 1049 (In Re Petition of Allen) 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 Petition of Allen, 507 P.2d 1049, 161 Mont. 547, 1973 Mont. LEXIS 636 (Mo. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

*548 PER CURIAM:

Original proceeding. Petitioner applies for a writ of habeas corpus pro se. He is presently confined in the Montana State Prison under a commitment issued by the district court of Yellowstone County.

Petitioner employed John L, Adams, Esq., an attorney of Billings, Montana, to defend him. Previously, while county attorney, said counsel had prosecuted petitioner for the come of grand larceny in 1968 and upon his conviction petitioner had been sentenced to a term of two years. The present charge and trial was in October of 1972. Petitioner at all times and particularly when he employed said counsel knew he was the attorney who had formerly prosecuted him for an unrelated crime to the one here involved.

Petitioner contends that the Lucero case, 161 Mont. 15, 504 P.2d 992, 30 St.Rep. 161, and the Levi Campbell case, 161 Mont. 543, 505 P.2d 1214, 30 St.Rep. 218, require that he be granted a new trial with new counsel. These cases are not authority for that position for in each case the counsel was court appointed and the defendants there had nothing to say about who should represent them on their defense. That is not the situation here. Petitioner also asserts that his counsel knowingly defended him in violation of section 94-3509, R.C.M. 1947. This averment is also incorrect in that that section prohibits an attorney from defending in a cause which he instituted while a *549 public officer, or whose partner did so, or from defending a cause which arose while he occupied an official position. This is not the situation here, Adams had long before completed his prosecution of petitioner, Allen’s sentence had been served, and when again in trouble with the law, petitioner sought out the services of Adams in his defense. This petitioner was free to do and Adams could accept such employment and in no way did any violation of the statute occur.

The relief sought is denied and the proceeding is dismissed.

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

*548 PER CURIAM:

Original proceeding. Petitioner applies for a writ of habeas corpus pro se. He is presently confined in the Montana State Prison under a commitment issued by the district court of Yellowstone County.

Petitioner employed John L, Adams, Esq., an attorney of Billings, Montana, to defend him. Previously, while county attorney, said counsel had prosecuted petitioner for the come of grand larceny in 1968 and upon his conviction petitioner had been sentenced to a term of two years. The present charge and trial was in October of 1972. Petitioner at all times and particularly when he employed said counsel knew he was the attorney who had formerly prosecuted him for an unrelated crime to the one here involved.

Petitioner contends that the Lucero case, 161 Mont. 15, 504 P.2d 992, 30 St.Rep. 161, and the Levi Campbell case, 161 Mont. 543, 505 P.2d 1214, 30 St.Rep. 218, require that he be granted a new trial with new counsel. These cases are not authority for that position for in each case the counsel was court appointed and the defendants there had nothing to say about who should represent them on their defense. That is not the situation here. Petitioner also asserts that his counsel knowingly defended him in violation of section 94-3509, R.C.M. 1947. This averment is also incorrect in that that section prohibits an attorney from defending in a cause which he instituted while a *549 public officer, or whose partner did so, or from defending a cause which arose while he occupied an official position. This is not the situation here, Adams had long before completed his prosecution of petitioner, Allen’s sentence had been served, and when again in trouble with the law, petitioner sought out the services of Adams in his defense. This petitioner was free to do and Adams could accept such employment and in no way did any violation of the statute occur.

The relief sought is denied and the proceeding is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

507 P.2d 1049, 161 Mont. 547, 1973 Mont. LEXIS 636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-petition-of-allen-mont-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack