Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

608 S.W.2d 114

State v. Dunn

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided October 28, 1980

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 1980-10-28

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently June 1982

2 federal appellate ·

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“By defendant’s third point he contends he was denied effective assistance of counsel in that his counsel was the juvenile officer of an adjoining circuit and therefore had a conflict of interest. At his guilty plea hearing defendant admitted thorough, prolonged consultation and satisfaction with his counsel. We are cited to neither statutory nor case law that there is an ipso facto conflict of interest in a juvenile officer representing a defendant in a case wholly unrelated to his official duties, and we decline to so rule. In support of his last contention defendant cites federal cases holding in substance that an attorney must render “untrammeled and unimpaired assistance” and avoid duplicity. We do not disagree but find the record does not show any conflict of interest by defendant’s trial court counsel.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 528 F. Supp. 448 - Dunn v. Wyrick

“(1) His guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered because his retained counsel did not inform Dunn that counsel had a conflict of interest to wit: counsel was also a juvenile officer for the State of Missouri at the time he represented petitioner. As a result of the alleged conflict of interest, defense counsel demanded Dunn plead guilty, threatened him with the death sentence, and acted like a prosecutor. (2) Dunn’s guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered because he was under the influence of drugs at the time the plea was entered. (3) The reduction of charges from capital murder to first and second degree murder deprived the circuit court of jurisdiction and the court’s acceptance of his guilty plea denied Dunn due process of law.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 528 F. Supp. 448 - Dunn v. Wyrick

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1980-10-28

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

CLEMENS, Senior Judge.

¶1Movant — defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment on pleas of guilty to two murder charges. His subsequent Rule 27.26 motion to vacate was denied without an evidentiary hearing and he has appealed. We affirm.

¶2By defendant’s first two points he contends his guilty pleas were involuntary because he was under the influence of drugs, that the court failed to inform him of the elements of the charged offenses and that his retained counsel, Dwayne Hack-worth, failed to file unspecified pre-trial motions and pressured him into pleading guilty. The guilty plea transcript refutes these allegations. The trial court so found, and appointed defense counsel Ronald E. Pedigo does not contend otherwise.

¶3By defendant’s third point he contends he was denied effective assistance of counsel in that his counsel was the juvenile officer of an adjoining circuit and therefore had a conflict of interest. At his guilty plea hearing defendant admitted thorough, prolonged consultation and satisfaction with his counsel. We are cited to neither statutory nor case law that there is an ipso facto conflict of interest in a juvenile officer representing a defendant in a case wholly unrelated to his official duties, and we decline to so rule.

¶4In support of his last contention defendant cites federal cases holding in substance that an attorney must render “untrammeled and unimpaired assistance” and avoid duplicity. We do not disagree but find the record does not show any conflict of interest by defendant’s trial court counsel.

¶5Judgment affirmed.

CRIST, P. J., and REINHARD and SNYDER, JJ., concur.
/608/sw2d/114 · .json · Public domain