Baker v. State , 2003 MT 148N ( 2003 )

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 of robbery,
misdemeanor theft and carrying a concealed weapon. We affirmed his
conviction on appeal. State v. Baker, 2000 MT 307, 302 Mont. 408,
15 P.3d 379. In 2001, Baker petitioned the Eighth Judicial
District Court, Cascade County, for postconviction relief,
asserting he was denied effective assistance of counsel both at
trial and on appeal. The District Court denied relief, and Baker
appeals. We affirm.
¶3 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/ JAMES C. NELSON
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
/S/ JIM REGNIER
3