Opinion ID: 885791
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Did the District Court err when it failed to address Weaver's motion for a new trial?

Text: ¶ 24 Weaver's final argument on appeal is that the District Court erred when it failed to consider and rule on his pro se motion for a new trial. However, as the preceding discussion demonstrates, Weaver understood that defense counsel would submit all motions on his behalf. We have previously held that it is not error for a district court to refuse pro se motions from defendants who are represented by counsel. See State v. Harvey (1986), 219 Mont. 402, 409-10, 713 P.2d 517, 522. Therefore, we conclude that the District Court did not err when it did so in this case. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. We Concur: KARLA M. GRAY, C.J., and JAMES C. NELSON, W. WILLIAM LEAPHART, and PATRICIA COTTER, JJ.