Anders brief (Montana) · Go Syfert
← Montana issues

Anders brief in Montana

15 Montana opinions name it 1 courts 1992–2025 7 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Montana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Baughgreen
mont · 1977 · cited in 1 Montana opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
2 sentences

2013State v. Baugh, 174 Mont. 456, 465 , 571 P.2d 779, 784 (1977).

2013State v. Baugh, 174 Mont. 456, 465 , 571 P.2d 779, 784 (1977).

11
Porter v. Stategreen
mont · 2002 · cited in 1 Montana opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
2 sentences

2013See Porter v. State, 2002 MT 319, ¶ 32 , 313 Mont. 149 , 60 P.3d 951 (defendant failed to “establish any prejudice as a result of the momentary observation of him in handcuffs by prospective jurors” and thus counsel’s failure to move for a mistrial was not deficient). ¶21 Each of Rukes’s other arguments regarding Daly’s alleged ineffectiveness was discussed in appellate counsel’s Anders brief and considered by this Court in dismissing his direct appeal.

2013See Porter v. State, 2002 MT 319, ¶ 32 , 313 Mont. 149 , 60 P.3d 951 (defendant failed to “establish any prejudice as a result of the momentary observation of him in handcuffs by prospective jurors” and thus counsel’s failure to move for a mistrial was not deficient). ¶21 Each of Rukes’s other arguments regarding Daly’s alleged ineffectiveness was discussed in appellate counsel’s Anders brief and considered by this Court in dismissing his direct appeal.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Montana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Anders v. California green
scotus · 1967
2 sentences

2022As an exhibit to his motion, he provides a document, titled Brief of Appellant, that sets forth the issue Howard identified as meritorious but not “worthwhile.” Howard asks this Court to review the document and, if it determines that the issue he would raise is meritorious, to order ADD to assign Krueger new counsel to pursue her appeal, and if not, to deem the brief to be an Anders brief in compliance with § 46-8-103(2), MCA, and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), and dismiss the appeal.

2022As an exhibit to his motion, he provides a document, titled Brief of Appellant, that sets forth the issue Howard identified as meritorious but not “worthwhile.” Howard asks this Court to review the document and, if it determines that the issue he would raise is meritorious, to order ADD to assign Krueger new counsel to pursue her appeal, and if not, to deem the brief to be an Anders brief in compliance with § 46-8-103(2), MCA, and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), and dismiss the appeal.

121992–2025
State v. Lovegren green
mont · 2002
2 sentences

2012DISCUSSION ¶10 Did the District Court err by denying Anders’ motion to suppress the evidence found within her purse on the basis of the community caretaker doctrine? ¶11 The District Court ruled that “Officer Miller’s search of Defendant’s handbag in order to discover why she was unconscious was proper under the community caretaker doctrine, adopted by the Montana Supreme Court in State v. Lovegren, 2002 MT 153 , 310 Mont. 358 , 51 P.3d 471 .” ¶12 In Lovegren , we adopted the following test to determine if the community caretaker doctrine applies in an encounter between government officials an

2012DISCUSSION ¶10 Did the District Court err by denying Anders’ motion to suppress the evidence found within her purse on the basis of the community caretaker doctrine? ¶11 The District Court ruled that “Officer Miller’s search of Defendant’s handbag in order to discover why she was unconscious was proper under the community caretaker doctrine, adopted by the Montana Supreme Court in State v. Lovegren, 2002 MT 153 , 310 Mont. 358 , 51 P.3d 471 .” ¶12 In Lovegren , we adopted the following test to determine if the community caretaker doctrine applies in an encounter between government officials an

12012–2012
Smith v. Robbins green
scotus · 2000
2 sentences

2003States may-and, we are confident, will-craft procedures that, in terms of policy, are superior to, or at least as good as, that in Anders.” Smith v. Robbins (2000), 528 U.S. 259, 276 , 120 S.Ct. 746, 759 , 145 L.Ed.2d 756, 774 .

2003States may-and, we are confident, will-craft procedures that, in terms of policy, are superior to, or at least as good as, that in Anders.” Smith v. Robbins (2000), 528 U.S. 259, 276 , 120 S.Ct. 746, 759 , 145 L.Ed.2d 756, 774 .

12003–2003

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MT § Mont. Code Ann. § 46-8-103 (7)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

TX 5327 (1925–2026) PA 2839 (1970–2026) OH 509 (1994–2026) LA 346 (1995–2025) NY 157 (1989–2026) FL 125 (1972–2026) CA 65 (1992–2026) IL 64 (1973–2026) AZ 56 (1970–2022) AR 54 (2001–2026) KY 34 (2001–2026) WA 29 (1969–2024) NC 23 (1994–2025) UT 21 (1978–2023) CT 21 (1986–2019) GA 19 (1978–2022) MT 15 (1992–2025) WY 14 (1989–2023) AL 10 (1986–2015) SC 9 (2002–2024) OR 6 (1984–2025) IN 6 (1972–2026) VT 5 (2005–2014) MI 4 (1984–2022) CO 4 (2006–2010) WI 4 (1974–2001) AK 3 (1988–2023) DC 3 (1981–2026) TN 3 (1997–2000) SD 2 (2004–2015) HI 2 (1996–2001) IA 2 (2021–2021) ND 2 (2020–2020) VA 2 (2003–2022)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check