Petition of Pepperling

3 Citing cases

  1. State v. Martz

    233 Mont. 136 (Mont. 1988)   Cited 16 times
    In State v. Martz (1988), 233 Mont. 136, 143, 760 P.2d 65, 68-69, this Court held that a guilty plea was voluntary and intelligent where a district court addressed the following issues: the defendant's constitutional rights; the consequences of a guilty plea; and the possible maximum penalty involved; and that the court could not involve itself in the plea agreement and was not obligated to accept the recommended sentence.

    But here, there is no prejudice. Jack Yardley's prosecution of Martz was a completely separate case from the one at issue. In Petition of Pepperling (1973), 162 Mont. 524, 525, 508 P.2d 569, 570, it was stated that: "It is not the law that the one-time prosecution of a defendant by a former county attorney forever prohibits that attorney from defending that individual on a separate and distinct criminal charge."

  2. Petition of Pepperling

    164 Mont. 541 (Mont. 1974)

    Petitioner relies on incompetent counsel and failure to perfect his appeal to this Court. By memorandum opinion dated April 3, 1973, 508 P.2d 569, being cause No. 12484, this Court considered and dismissed petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus alleging incompetent counsel. This Court's records reveal that there have been delays in the handling of petitioner's appeal to this Court, however, counsel for petitioner has filed a brief in his behalf with this Court and the respondent State's brief will be filed and this matter ready to be docketed for hearing during the next term of this Court.

  3. Petition of Romero

    511 P.2d 1316 (Mont. 1973)

    Counsel who represented the State at the trial of the case was Richard W. Anderson, deputy county attorney of Yellowstone County. Nowhere does it appear that court appointed counsel who represenetd petitioner on his latest trial appeared in that prosecution in any manner, and petitioner must be mistaken in his allegations. We recently dealt with similar contentions in In re Petition of Pepperling, 162 Mont. 524, 508 P.2d 569, and we quote partinent portions of that opinion: "Petitioner contends that appointing a former prosecuting attorney to defend him was in violation of this Court's decisions in In re Petition of Lucero, 161 Mont. 136, 504 P.2d 992; and In re Petition of Campbell, 161 Mont. 543, 505 P.2d 1214. Petitioner misconstrues the decisions in those cases.