State v. S. Strike
State v. S. Strike
Opinion
ORIGINAL 07/12/2022
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Case Number: DA 20-0471
DA 20-0471 FILED STATE OF MONTANA, JUL 1 2 2022 Bovvt,r1 Plaintiff and Appellee, Clerk of Su,..“ erne Court State of montane
v. ORDER STEVEN LEE STRIKE, Sr., Defendant and Appellant.
Counsel for the Appellant Steven Lee Strike, Sr., filed a motion and brief asking to be allowed to withdraw from this appeal on grounds that counsel has been unable to find any nonfrivolous issues to raise on appeal, pursuant to § 46-8-103(2), MCA, and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Strike was granted time to file a response, but no response was filed.
The Court has now independently examined the record pursuant to § 46-8-103(2), MCA, and Anders. Our examination of the record indicates that nonfrivolous issues may exist on appeal. We direct counsel to review the complete record on appeal and to further consider whether: defense counsel misstated the law during closing argument; the imposed restitution constitutes an illegal sentence; the District Court's written judgment conforms to its oral pronouncement; and counsel was ineffective in failing to raise meritorious objections and in failing to advocate for his client.
Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that counsel's motion to be allowed to withdraw is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellant's opening brief shall be due within thirty days of the date of this Order.
The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to Strike personally.
DATED this I day ofJuly, 2022.
Chief Justice
cinfr(„, :#1 --ceAfi A1 alLit,
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.