Dunn v. Wyrick, 81-2429
| Citation | 679 F.2d 731 |
| Decision Date | 01 June 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-2429,81-2429 |
| Parties | Michael DUNN, Appellant, v. Donald WYRICK, Warden, Missouri Penitentiary, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Lew A. Kollias, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Mo., for appellee.
David S. Delugas, Coburn, Croft & Putzell, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
Before FLOYD R. GIBSON and STEPHENSON, Senior Circuit Judges, and BRIGHT, Circuit Judge.
Michael Dunn appeals from the district court's 1 denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dunn argues that the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing before denying his petition. We affirm.
Dunn is currently in the Missouri state penitentiary serving two concurrent life sentences for murder. He now claims that his guilty pleas to first- and second-degree murder, entered on August 6, 1977 and August 22, 1977 respectively, were not knowingly and voluntarily made because he was under the influence of drugs at the time of the plea hearings, and his counsel provided ineffective assistance. Dunn alleges that his attorney failed to conduct any pretrial investigation; failed to prepare adequately for trial; coerced Dunn into pleading guilty; threatened Dunn with the death penalty; made a deal with the state's attorney without Dunn's knowledge or approval; misled Dunn into believing he would receive concurrent ten-year sentences; and failed to inform Dunn of a conflict of interest, arising from his position as a juvenile officer for the State of Missouri. 2
Dunn raised these claims in his motion for postconviction relief under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 27.26. The state trial court dismissed the motion without an evidentiary hearing, finding Dunn's claims to be refuted by the records of the plea proceedings. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. State v. Dunn, 608 S.W.2d 114 (Mo.App.1980). Dunn then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which the federal district court likewise denied without an evidentiary hearing.
All of Dunn's allegations of involuntariness are flatly contradicted by his admissions at the proceedings in which the trial court accepted his guilty pleas. At each hearing the trial court advised Dunn of the nature of the charge against him, the range of possible punishment, and the constitutional rights he would waive by pleading guilty. In response to questioning from the bench, Dunn stated that he had discussed the case numerous times with his attorney and was satisfied with his attorney's advice, that his plea was not induced by threats or promises, that he understood no promises could be made regarding the length of his sentence, and that he had taken no drugs or alcohol during the twenty-four hours prior to the hearing. In each instance, the trial court concluded that Dunn knowingly and voluntarily entered his guilty plea.
Because Dunn's allegations are unsubstantiated and conclusory, the district court was justified in refusing to look behind the sworn statements Dunn made at his plea hearings. As the Supreme Court noted in Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 1629, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977):
While Dunn is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if he alleges facts which, if true, would justify relief, a district court is not required "to conduct an evidentiary hearing on allegations which amount( ) to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Graham v. Solem
...694 F.2d 282, 285-87 (1st Cir.1982). 6 We also are aware that this circuit has mixed opinions on the subject. Compare Dunn v. Wyrick, 679 F.2d 731, 733 (8th Cir.1982) (Rose v. Lundy will not be applied to habeas corpus petitions where exhausted claims have been fully litigated and decided i......
-
Manis v. Wyrick
...considered the line of Eighth Circuit cases which are illustrated by Toler v. Wyrick, 563 F.2d 372 (8th Cir.1977) and Dunn v. Wyrick, 679 F.2d 731 (8th Cir. 1982) in which a district court denial of federal habeas corpus relief was affirmed in cases in which the district court dismissed the......
-
Niziolek v. Ashe
...reconsider these same claims at another time. This we decline to do without an express direction from the Supreme Court. Dunn v. Wyrick, 679 F.2d 731, 733 (8th Cir.1982). We agree with the Sixth and Eighth Circuits and hold that Rose does not require a federal appellate court to decline rev......
-
Burns v. Estelle
...consider Rose v. Lundy issue where never raised by the State; grant of writ vacated notwithstanding unexhausted claims); Dunn v. Wyrick, 679 F.2d 731 (8th Cir.1982) (Rose v. Lundy not retroactive). These "exceptions" to the rule of Rose v. Lundy do not appear valid in light of further analy......