BAKER v STATE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 02-393 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2003 MT 148N WILLIAM J. BAKER, Petitioner and Appellant, v. STATE OF MONTANA, Respondent and Respondent. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, In and for the County of Cascade, Cause No. BDC-98-527 The Honorable Marge Johnson, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: William J. Baker, Pro Se, Deer Lodge, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Jennifer Anders, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Brant Light, Cascade County Attorney; Susan Weber, Deputy County Attorney, Great Falls, Montana Submitted on Briefs: May 8, 2003 Decided: May 23, 2003 Filed: __________________________________________ Clerk Chief Justice Karla M. Gray delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal Operating Rules, the following decision shall not be cited as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and shall be reported by case title, Supreme Court cause number and result to the State Reporter Publishing Company and to West Group in the quarterly table of noncitable cases issued by this Court. ¶2 In 1999, William J. Baker was convicted misdemeanor theft and carrying a concealed weapon. conviction on appeal. 15 P.3d 379. District In Court, of robbery, We affirmed his State v. Baker, 2000 MT 307, 302 Mont. 408, 2001, Baker petitioned the Eighth Judicial Cascade County, for postconviction relief, asserting he was denied effective assistance of counsel both at trial and on appeal. appeals. ¶3 The District Court denied relief, and Baker We affirm. On appeal, Baker argues the District Court's denial of his petition for postconviction relief is contrary to federal law under Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674. ¶4 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to our Order dated February 11, 2003, amending Section 1.3 of our 1996 Internal Operating Rules and providing for memorandum opinions. On the face of the record and the briefs, it is manifest that the appeal is without merit because there clearly is sufficient evidence to support the District Court's finding of fact that the record and 2 the affidavits submitted by Baker's public defender and appellate defender establish that Baker was given effective assistance of counsel as required under Strickland in the underlying criminal proceedings and on appeal. ¶5 Affirmed. /S/ KARLA M. GRAY We concur: /S/ /S/ /S/ /S/ JAMES C. NELSON PATRICIA COTTER W. WILLIAM LEAPHART JIM REGNIER 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
