Barness v. State
| Citation | 187 N.W.2d 111,290 Minn. 509 |
| Decision Date | 23 April 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 42106,42106 |
| Parties | Richard BARNESS, Appellant, v. STATE of Minnesota, Respondent. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
C. Paul Jones, Public Defender, Roberta K. Levy, Asst. Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant.
Douglas M. Head, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, George M. Scott, County Atty., Henry W. McCarr, Jr., and David G. Roston, Asst Reconsidered and decided on the record by the Court en banc.
County Attys., Minneapolis, for respondent.
Heard before KNUTSON, C.J., and OTIS, KELLY, FRANK T. GALLAGHER, and ROSENGREN, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the district court denying a petition for postconviction relief. On December 13, 1955, a jury found petitioner guilty of first-degree robbery. A petition for a writ of error coram nobis was denied on August 27, 1957, and the denial of this writ was affirmed by this court on April 11, 1958. State ex rel. Barness v. County of Hennepin, 252 Minn. 174, 89 N.W.2d 166. A petition for postconviction relief was filed, a hearing was held thereon, and the petition was denied.
The principal issues raised on this appeal are: (1) Whether petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient as a matter of law to support the conviction; (3) whether the trial court's instructions to the jury were erroneous and whether the petitioner was prejudiced thereby; (4) whether petitioner was denied his right of allocution.
The claim of inadequate counsel is not new for it was previously considered at length and rejected in coram nobis proceedings instituted by petitioner more than 13 years ago. State ex rel. Barness v. County of Hennepin, Supra. Petitioner cites the following instances of incompetency by his attorney: He did not adequately attempt to investigate alibi witnesses; he failed to object to evidence which was introduced at his trial which connected one Charles Burde to the robbery instead of petitioner; and, while representing both Burde and petitioner, he had Burde declared insane prior to petitioner's trial.
Before petitioner's trial, Burde indicated to petitioner's attorney his willingness to testify that petitioner did not assist him in the robbery but that one Nick DeLong was his accomplice. Petitioner's attorney had a duty to prevent an incompetent witness from testifying in a court of law. If another attorney had represented Burde, he would have had the same duty. Thus, there appears to be no prejudice against petitioner. '* * * (W)here no actual prejudice is shown, the appointment of a single attorney for codefendants is not in itself a denial of effective assistance of counsel.' State v. Robinson, 271 Minn. 477, 480, 136 N.W.2d 401, 404.
An evidentiary hearing on the postconviction petition was granted at which petitioner, represented by the public defender, appeared and testified at length. The scope of our review in a postconviction proceeding is limited to the question of whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain the findings of the postconviction court. Our careful examination of the record not only fails to reveal any significant support for petitioner's other claims bearing on the issue of incompetent counsel, but compels the conclusion that the evidence supports the findings of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ecker
...there is sufficient evidence to sustain the findings of the postconviction court. Rainer, 502 N.W.2d at 787; Barness v. State, 290 Minn. 509, 510, 187 N.W.2d 111, 112 (1971). Ecker's first argument is that his guilty plea to first-degree murder was inaccurate and lacked a sufficient factual......
-
State v. Graham
...Ohio O.2d 316, 3 Ohio App.2d 215, 210 N.E.2d 142 (1965); Dodson v. Commonwealth, 159 Va. 976, 167 S.E. 260 (1933).3 Barness v. State, 290 Minn. 509, 187 N.W.2d 111 (1971); State v Everson, 286 Minn. 246, 175 N.W.2d 503 (1970).4 State v. Keaton, 258 Minn. 359, 104 N.W.2d 650 (1960); State v.......
-
State v. Kluck
...was made to it. Similar cautionary instructions on alibi have been considered by this court on a number of occasions. Barness v. State, 290 Minn. 509, 187 N.W.2d 111 (1971); State v. Keezer, 274 Minn. 292, 143 N.W.2d 627, certiorari denied, 385 U.S. 896, 87 S.Ct. 216, 17 L.Ed.2d 141 (1966);......
-
Kochevar v. State
...Factual findings, such as this, of a postconviction court will not be disturbed if supported by sufficient evidence. Barness v. State, 290 Minn. 509, 187 N.W.2d 111 (1971). Since the record contains abundant support for the court's finding, it must be sustained. For example, appellant's tri......