Doyle J. Williams v. Bill Armontrout, Warden

1376 аs of March We hold there was substantial evi- be determined

petition should support finding the Commis- to the Tax Court’s date on which dence entry computation for years in each of the tax sioner filed Rule 155. Tax Court decision under deficiencies were determined there was an underpayment of tax due to fraud. We least, near- very appellants waited theAt imposition affirm the of the therefore 50% August 24 deci- after ly seven months penalty years civil fraud each of the tax filing their motion to filed sion was before deficiency determined. in which a was August 24 of the deci- analysis An amend. shortly by appellants after sion undertaken that, although appellants hold We also have indicated whether filed would report gain on might have elected to advantageous or averaging was income January Brittany pursuant sale of say these facts We cannot not. method, they use to the installment cannot its discretion in hold- abused the Tax Court gain from 1038 to shift much of the tax § untimely.19 ing that the motion year 1980. year 1979 to tax Moreover, did not the Tax Court abuse that, appellants further hold since We holding that the Commis- its discretion challenge failed to the treatment as ordi- granting prejudiced sioner would be capital nary income of the distribution averaging that income motion and Interfund, they cannot now raise the from properly on the calculated could not be appeal. issue properly ap- To calculate present record. Finally, did we hold that the Tax Court averaging pur- income income for pellants’ appel- denying its discretion in not abuse ap- required knowledge would poses, petition to lants’ motion to amend their during income the base correct pellants’ years averaging incomе for the tax elect through 1981. The burden years 1973 1977, 1979 and 1980. appel- correct income was proving this Affirmed. 142(a). As the Court Rule lants. Tax states, however, appellants Commissioner much of the documenta- produce

failed necessary that would be and records

tion correct income for

for them to establish The Tax Court observed years.

the base pursue failed to cer- that the Commissioner Doyle WILLIAMS, J. Appellant, relating appellants’ income tain claims they years were out- for the base ARMONTROUT, Warden, Bill Appellee. as then framed relevant issues side the If pleadings. the Commissioner No. 88-1027. appellants would assert known that United States of Appeals, Court averaging, income claim of Eighth Circuit. contested it. considered, hold that the things All we Submitted Dec. 1988. its discretion did not abuse Tax Court Decided June 1989. motion to amend their denying appellants’ Rehearing Rehearing En Banc averaging. petition elect income 7, 1989. Aug. Denied

VI.

To summarize: case, entry they after of the Tax Court’s deci instant Appellants cite several cases which untimely. filing the motion was of the Commissioner’s subse claim show that sion and the cases, however, was income taxpayers’ proposed computation In not one of these averaging requested quent Tax Court Commissioner, as late in thе liability. Mannette v. tax See proceedings In the cases cited the as here. Commissioner, (1978); T.C. 990 Criscuolo requests average made in the income were (CCH) T.C.M. trial, not, following taxpayers' briefs Mo., German, City, Kansas

Charles W. appellant. for Mo., Hawke, City, Stephen D. Jefferson appellee. ARNOLD, Judge, Before Circuit BRIGHT, Judge, and Senior Circuit GIBSON, Judge. R. Circuit JOHN Judge. BRIGHT, Senior Circuit appeals the dismissal of Doyle Williams under corpus petition for writ habeas proceedings, 2254. In these 28 U.S.C. § capi- conviction challenges his Missouri life in murder, resulting in a sentence tal fifty parole for possibility of prison without in his several issues years. raises eye- admissibility of including the appeal, testimony, the effec- witness allegations counsel and day, police of his trial occasions. Later that tiveness officer by the State. We affirm. misconduct through Oscar Ross drove Purvis Aux- vasse, at which time identified Doyle I. BACKGROUND Williams’ car as the car she had seen that morning. Purvis testified that she did not 11,1980, police recovered the On October plate see a license Domann, the front of the car. who was last body of Dr. A.H. Officer Ross testified that Williams’ car clay from a seen alive Auxvasse, only plate, a rear licensе none on the Missouri. Police pit north ‍‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌​‍of front. caliber bullets Domann’s found three .45 1981, charged the State

body. In March Dedra testified that on October jury Domann’s murder. A Williams 5, 1980, between 10:00 and 10:30 in the following began October. trial morning, while she worked as a clerk at a 7, gas store, Morgan testified that on station convenience John October a man asked 1980, pit took him to her clay Williams for directions to Domann’s house. At trial, Herdeg of Auxvasse and told per- north identified Williams as the Williams, he, sought had murdered Domann the son who directions from her. day before. testified Williams Williams claims that the admissiоn of Her- following the murder and events deg’s testimony described process violated due be- great Morgan also detail. testified by suggestive cause it pretrial was tainted killing had discussed Do- he and Williams photo lineups suggestive hypnosis and a pre- several occasions in order to mann on session. testifying forgery from on a

vent Domann Following trial, convicted charge against Williams. Williams Domann’s murder and sen Rea testified that Williams at- Barbara him prison possibil tenced to life in without party tended a trailer home late in ity parole years. for fifty The Missouri 5, 1980, day at which conviction, Appeals Court of affirmed the party guests and other fired Williams Williams, v. (Mo.Ct. State 662 S.W.2d 277 dump outside the weapons at a trash trail- App.1983), subsequently him denied guests party er. testified at trial. Several relief, post-conviction testimony revealed that Williams This 730 (Mo.Ct.App.1987). S.W.2d 284 brought party containing a briefcase to the petition Williams then filed this for writ guns. guns At least one of several those corpus, pursuant of habeas to 28 U.S.C. pistol was a .45 caliber automatic 2254, in the United States District Court § fired, party guest Randy Clardy did as for the Eastern District of Missouri. The Coleman, Betty Doyle Williams. petition. district court dеnied the ap- This girlfriend, possessed a also .45 caliber auto- peal followed. weapon party. matic which she fired at the

Later, law enforcement officers recovered II. DISCUSSION eight ten .45 caliber bullets and .45 caliber Dedra In-Court Identifi- A. cartridge casings dump. near the trash cation Expert testimony at trial established that expended five bullets found at the Herdeg’s in- that Dedra gun dump from the same that killed were court identification of him as the man who expert testimony ex- Domann. Further asked her for directions Domann’s house weapon Betty cluded Coleman’s .45 caliber rejected should be as so unreliable as to gun used to kill the doctor. Police right pro- violate his to due constitutional weapon. the murder never recovered cess. Purvis, Domann, neighbor of Dr. Jessie 1. Procedural Bar approximately

testified that at 5:45 a.m. 6, 1980, claims that she saw Williams’ white The State house, challenging just procedurally car in front of her catercorner barred from Her- house, separate deg’s from Domann’s on three in-court

1379 challenged contemporaneously determine whether the confron failed ob However, suspect on tation the witness and the identification. between ject conviction, impermissibly suggestive. appeal direct from his Graham v. 1533, (8th Cir.), Solem, F.2d Appeals its 728 1541 Missouri Court of exercised cert. 842, 148, denied, 105 discretionary power to determine whether 83 (1984). L.Ed.2d 86 found that neither State admitted at plain error occurred and impermissibly ‍‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌​‍lineup suggestive Her trial the nature nor the affected photospreads Herdeg. deg’s shown identification. State v. Nevertheless, suggestiveness a pho- state court 662 at 281. S.W.2d tospread discretionary require alone does not exclusion adequately review undertook subsequent procedural defect in-court identification. of these claims and Id.; Engle 198-99, Biggers, 409 exists federal review. See Neil v. U.S. to bar n. Isaac, 381-82, (1972). S.Ct. 93 S.Ct. 34 L.Ed.2d 401 n. 71 L.Ed.2d step second calls a court to whether, under totality determine the of 2. The In-Court Identification circumstances, the the identification Herdeg’s in-court calls though stand as reliable even the initial due so unreliable to violate identification procedure out-of-court identification con- Herdeg first interviewed process. Police Graham, suggestive tained elements. 13,1980, learning that she on after October 1541; Neil, F.2d 409 U.S. at at S.Ct. given Domann’s someone directions to Supreme Biggers, at 382. Neil v. the day the before the house on October forth to Court set five factors consider time, police showed her murder. At evaluating the likelihood of misidentifica- photographs, and two of five of men seven (1) opportunity of tion: the the witness to Herdeg as the identified Williams women. crime, at the time of the view the criminal asked to Domann’s man who directions attention, (3) (2) of the degree the witness’ Only photograph, how home. Williams’ prior accuracy description of the witness’ ever, glasses and a a man with showed criminal, (4) certainty of the the lеvel of photosp displayed this same Police beard. by the at the initial demonstrated witness Herdeg separate to occasions. read two identification, (5) length of and the time later, identifica- ostensibly the crime and the initial attempt in an between Sometime 199-200, 93 at 382. tion. at S.Ct. help Herdeg and describe the Id. to remember for di- of the man who asked automobile Herdeg person asked her viewed the who rections, Herdeg permitted police a officer approximately It was directions. session, hypnotize hypnosis her. the to At him, attempt- speaking she to a.m. and was photograph her a of officer showed ing Ample opportunity give to directions. photo- displayed other Police Williams. person. The cir- viewing the existed for kept sort of graphs Herdeg, any nor to likely degree of at- disclose a cumstances The tri- recording hypnosis session. Only served as the attendant tention. she sup- motion to granted al court Williams’ Herdeg gas store. at station convenience lineup, but denied press photographic for directions that Williams asked testified suppress at any to identification the motion She to Dоmann house trial. picture of out picked first delay A photo display on October 13. charges lineups and the that the time eight Her- merely days between hypnosis session violated constitutional deg the man who asked directions procedures saw rights those served of him per- first identification impermissibly suggest Williams as the significantly undermine the relia- does not question having the conversation in son bility of the identification. in-court Herdeg and led to later of Williams. prop- positively supporting factors These however, outweighed identification, are process er step аnalyzing a due first i.e., factors, remaining is on evaluation challenge to an in-court identification description Herdeg’s prior hypersuggestibility accuracy hypercompli- part for directions and on the subject may who asked ance of the man flaw certainty demonstrated hypnosis. Hypnosis she recollection under the level of is confabulation, initial identification. The also time of the associated with a tend- Herdeg gave any ency by subject not show to be influenced record does person being fill gaps need to in the in his or her description of memо- hypnosis ry. hypnosis, At the photographs. hypnotist After neither the shown however, session, subject distinguish she described the man as nor the can between glasses. pseudomemories Williams wears wearing real memories and confa- Furthermore, glasses. hypnosis. record unclear as to the under bulated af- certainty Herdeg hypnosis, evinced degree memory when ter one has of an picture event, pho- false, out of the picked she it true or becomes hardened However, even if we assume display. subject’s in the mind. 771 F.2d at 1119-20. certain, fairly only photo- Arkansas, See Rock v. lineup of a man with a graph 2704, 2712-14, beard 97 L.Ed.2d 37 photo thus diminish- problem basic for the courts is that [T]he any certainty may the value accuracy does not insure the Furthermore, Williams at- have evinced. Quite hypno- witness’ recall. often deposition Herdeg. taken of De- tended a persons produce tized more information questioned Herdeg as fol- fense counsel following hypnosis, may but it be accu- lows: rate or inaccurate and there is no scien- Q. that Mr. Williams is You are aware technique reliably tific that can discrimi- me, not, sitting right you are here beside nate between truе or false details re- you? or are during hypnosis. counted A. No. (footnote Sprynczynatyk, 771 F.2d at 1120 Q. in Does that man look like the man omitted). picture? police kept no memoranda or notes familiarity. A. There a hypnosis Herdeg session in which face-to-face Even seated with when record, however, participated. The indi- suggestive photo lineups Williams after the cates that participated a officer who session, Herdeg could hypnosis and the not investigation of Domann’s murder positively identify ap- Williams. It thus Herdeg’s hypnosis during conducted pears Herdeg positivе made identifica- that Herdeg single photo- that session showed only suggestive in tions of set- graph, Thus, Doyle that of Williams. con- tings; i.e., impermissibly suggestive at the admittedly suggestive sideration of the photo lineups and at trial where Williams photospread, any positive the absence of was the defendant. known prior verification of Williams’ identification showing Herdeg’s to trial and the uncer- analysis Biggers The Neil indicates tainty in fact of her identification of the circumstances sur- totality that the Williams, together with an uncontrolled rounding suggests Herdeg’s identification hypnotic session in which cоuld be of misidentification. substantial likelihood highly identify influenced to 198-99, 93 S.Ct. at 381-82. U.S. leads to the conclusion that the in-court Moreover, improve the use of rejected pro- identification must be on due Herdeg’s memory highly the risk of carries grounds. highly suggestive cess inci- suggestive hypnosis procedures which adds dents which we have discussed caused a to the likelihood of a misidentification. very substantial likelihood of either mis- problems Several with re are associated resting identification or an identification freshing In by hypnosis. recollections not on the recollection witness’ own but Sprynczynatyk Corp., v. General Motors by impermissible suggestions. induced (8th Cir.), 771 F.2d 1119-20 cert. de nied, Although determine that 106 S.Ct. we (1985), error, recognized testimony L.Ed.2d 572 the de- this court performance of is so justify relief under al counsel’s his duties does termination testimony case. In ineffective as to warrant reversal a con- facts of this Williams, Herdeg show, first, made refer- his identifying Williams must viction. discussing “they” when who attorney’s representation ence to fell an below ob- service station stopped at the and, the car that jective standard of reasonableness sec- suggesting that another thus ond, prejudiced by his that his defense was he asked when person was with Williams attorney’s performance. deficient defended Herdeg for directions. Williams he his Williams contends that was denied arguing Morgan at trial himself right to effective ‍‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌​‍assist- Sixth Amendment Two defense wit- committed the murder. points counsel at trial. He ance Morgan, while at trial that nesses testified alleges his number of areas where killed Do- told them that he prison, had attorney’s performance was deficient. going frame Williams mann and was record, entire light In the murder. 1. Questioning of John Morgan Morgan ac- conclude that could contends that his Williams asked when companied Williams question properly failure to John residence. Domann’s directions to regarding Morgan’s “deal” with State erode Williams’ Herdeg’s testimony did not his statements violat- inconsistent may it. even have bolstered defense and right his Amendment to effective ed Sixth Moreover, testimony cumulated of counsel. The Missouri Court assistance testimony placing a car Purvis the Purvis Appeals addressed this issue vehicle identified as Williams’ later peti- appeal of the denial of his on the Williams’ Dr. Domann’s house vicinity of relief and we are post-conviction 6. Purvis tеstified tion morning of October complete agreement analysis its people in that car. two observed testimony identifying light of Purvis’ issue. the Domann home on car near challenges Mar- Specifically movant murder, Herdeg’s iden- morning of the to cross-examine shall’s failure way crucial tification was the state and on on his “deal” with State. Marshall prior inconsistent statements. acknowledged strategy, that his readily Herdeg’s identification conclude that We by in mov- and concurred discussed with have made no difference of would ant, areas in cross-ex- to avoid these was alone did in such evidence the trial —that Morgan. He concentrated of amination may and to the conviction not contribute drug Morgan’s heavy addic- instead assertion that reinforced have Williams’ This, expert testi- with tion. combined else, i.e., Morgan, killed Domann. someone of such addiction mony as to the effects petition for Accordingly, deny Williams’ we condition, de- Morgan’s mental was Herdeg identification relief. The habeas Morgan’s jury the of signed to convince error be- testimony to harmless amounted to frame unreliability a and as witness Chapman v. yond a reasonable doubt. See Morgan sole of as the 824, possibility 24, the 18, 87 S.Ct. California, Iowa, murderer. (1967); Lam v. 17 L.Ed.2d 706 (8th Cir.1988). 860 F.2d the Brummett had observed Marshall in which trials and three other trial* B. Trial Counsel and inconsist exploration of the “deal" Effectiveness of in unsuccessful been ent statements Washington, Strickland acquittal. He was also producing an L.Ed.2d 104 S.Ct. trial, in the Brummett that aware forth a (1984), Supreme Court set the killing of participation in the Williams’ determining tri- two-prong test whether * corpus in trial, petition for writ of habeas prior the that Domann We are aware Eighth trial, pending in Circuit. Doyle the separate convicted is now was that case a Armontrout, Kerry Brummett and sen- No. of 88-1342. of the murder Williams v. appeal of from the denial An tenced death. jury had come before the

Domann and The information which have been penalty. had assessed the death jury brought through door that could well of subject the “deal” was the The matter penalty. have insured a death In fact during the voir questioning dire exam- argument movant that very stated in his jurors. jury Domann ination of appeal penalty of his death in the Brum Morgan therefore that was aware mett case. 652 S.W. [State exchange promise for a tеstifying (Mo. 1983).] 2d 102 banc It would Morgan’s prior non-prosecution. crimi- difficult indeed to conclude that counsel brought during out nal record his eschewing was ineffective in strategy by state. direct examination Mar- proved unsuccessful in the death his shall based cross-examination case strategy when the pursued different by “opening his concern the door” in a resulted lesser sentence here. We concerning, the deal he would allow the nothing find unreasonable about Mar prosecution carry across the threshold strategy carefully avoiding shall’s recitation complete сrimes for cracking even We door. must defer Morgan prosecuted, would not be judgment. to his including murder of Brummett and Williams v. 730 S.W.2d at 287-88. burglary of Domann. He also want- ed to avoid establishment close- Questioning Kay Lepley Morgan Williams and ness between and attorney that his together frequent their activities as it properly failed to Kay Lep cross-examine strengthen jury’s perception would ley bring jury before the her “deal” participate if did in Domann’s with prior the State and her inconsistent did so murder he with Williams. These Lepley statements. testified that she at present regards were same concerns shooting party tended the * * * Barbara Rea’s inconsistent statements. trailer where observed Williams re strategy, As a result Marshall’s guns move two from a briefcase and fire trial, during was aware includ- pile. shots into the trash The State had an punishment phase, only agreement that, Lepley exchange complicity the attempt for her testimony, prosecute not would a controlled substance obtain fraud. possession ruby her for ring of a stolen imposed punish- It the lesser of two earlier from Domann’s home Williams to it. ments available Morgan. not to bring decision find anything We dо not about the agreement jury appears before the to rest * * * strategy choice unreasonable. reasons, strategic on sound the same rea challenges ac- attorney sons Williams’ did cross-exam basis exploration tions on the non-prosecution ine John on his deal and inconsistent statements agreement with the State. Counsel did not opened would not the door to testi- want to disclose to the the close rela concerning mony his in involvement oth- tionship Morgan between and Williams or * * * Clearly er crimes. the nature and history together. their criminal As the Morgan number of crimes for which noted, attorney state court Williams’ uti prosecuted not to be was relevant on the strategy lized good this for reasons and credibility. issue of his How far such an thus it does not amount to ineffective as permitted go will examination to in of counsel. sistance exploring the full of scope the deal is event, In any any failure to largely the further within discretion of the indi- * * * Lepley cross-examine also must be vidual trial court. The door deemed which Lepley’s merely opening testimony Marshall feared harmless error. could not have duplicated testimony if or the judge been closed the corroborated of determined dur- Randy Clardy redirect that he and Rea would allow full ex- Barbara about the ploration shooting party the deal or on. of the circumstances surrounding demonstrate, required inconsistent statements. Williams cannot as drugs car, searching but, for Washington, prejudice Williams’ Strickland by alleged deficiency rather, in his looking were for evidence resulting from the which Lepley. of attorney’s cross-examination link Williams to Domann’s murder. However, provides Williams evidence Object 3. Failure to to Search and police engaged in an exploratory that were Seizure argument, police His that used the search. drugs in as a way car per- search Williams’ that claims his investigation to obtain evidence its of stan- Sixth Amendment formance violated murder, speculation. rests on to Domann’s he failed dards reasonableness when sufficiently Morgan’s affidavit demonstrat- illegal search seizure of object and to the to up probable a .45 ed cause the automobile The search turned believe Williams’ car. drugs. same conducted a le- cartridge, carried Police thus caliber Federal brand validly gal pursuant kill The State to a obtained to Domann. search brand used cartridge into at trial. placed evidence warrant. police offi- first contends that event, any admission car- jurisdiction obtain war-

cers lacked tridge into evidence alone did substan- state car. The rant to search Williams’ prejudice The State tially Williams. court, however, contrary, ruled to the presented overwhelming evidence other- reasoning this issue.1 to its we defer implicating .45 Williams’ automatic wise Adamson, See Ricketts v. weapon. probable murder Ex- рistol as (1987) 2683-84 n. 97 L.Ed.2d testimony at pert trial revealed Feder- (in corpus proceedings, federal habeas cartridges are common. ‍‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌​‍dis- al brand inter- court court is bound state federal single Federal brand covery of a .45 caliber law). pretation of state cartridge in the trunk of automo- weight prosecution’s little to the bile added objects to the affidavit Williams also case. underlying application John being vague too search warrant We support the issuance the warrant. C. State’s Misconduct Morgan’s and de- affidavit reviewed 1. False Disclosure of the Morgаn facts to presents it sufficient

termine that Deal finding probable under permit cause attorney that advised The State Delaware, 98 S.Ct. Franks v. immunity granted had been John 57 L.Ed.2d of Calla- place took outside for crimes that Morgan, either failed demonstrate that however, argues, County. Williams way reck- intelligently, or with knowingly the other counties prosecutors of truth, for the intended disregard less granted crimes never occurred affidavit. any make false statement disclosure, he immunity. This false such 155-56, 98 S.Ct. at 2676. Id. contends, prejudiced way would, way, in some have affected Finally, Williams’ contention again Morgan. We attorney questioned exploratory generalized police conducted state court’s determination to the defer merit. Williams search is without state law.2 applicable interested officers were not squad major case initial- illegally formation to the state also contends that the 1. Movant ly- This is use fraud. evidence obtained members movant’s conclusion that based Williams v. 730 S.W.2d at 288-89. authority squad act major case lack the number, alleging pros- points, five in county Movant’s police for which 2. outside the as officers lacking similarly misconduct arе ecutorial they authorizes Sec. 57.111 RSMo 1979 work. prose- is that main issue raised merit. The evidence temporary There was commissions. attorney into be- squad movant and major misled practice case cution lieving for is standard it freedom from had received given temporary commissions to be members disclosed includ- prosecution for all crimes he they working. We be- county are wherein Callaway County, by ing outside committed authority inherently those is bestowed lieve such making prosecutor the "deal". county county agreeing the sheriffs each the acts of 1384

2. Coercion of Barbara III. Rea CONCLUSION foregoing, accordance with the we af- on hearing

At the Williams’ motion judgment firm the trial, district court de- Rea testified new Barbara nying petition for writ of habeas Squad Major investigat Case corpus. murder threatened to take Domann’s from her. away her Williams con child GIBSON, Judge, JOHN R. Circuit alone requires tends that this threat rever concurring specially. sal of his conviction because Rea could Herdeg’s refuted judgment I concur in the court gas morning Williams at the station the today. agreement I am in analy- with the before the murder.3 Williams claims that sis the only excep- court makes with one home, he at fifty was Barbara Rea’s some I tion. believe that hyp- discussion station, 5, gas miles from the procedures nosis necessary to reach a.m., 9 same Herdeg at time the conclusion that the identification of Williams asked testified di by Williams Dedra fails the Neal v. Rea, however, rections. testified that al I Biggers analysis. would leave to another though Williams at her visited home day further consideration of the she could not state the time of issue. any certainty. visit suggests that if Rea had not threatened, been would have remem-

bered that Williams was her home ‍‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌​‍at 9 5, 1980, undercutting

a.m. on October thus However, identification. as dis- BROS., INC., EWALD a Minnesota opinion, cussed earlier this admission of corporation, Appellant, Herdeg’s identification constituted harm- less error. has not established v. coercion, any, that the if affected the testi- DAIRYMEN, INC., MID-AMERICA mony of Barbara Rea and we therefore corporation, Appellee. Kansas reject this claim. No. 88-5288. also that his United Court Appeals, States concerning failure to cross-examine Rea Eighth Circuit. by threats State amounted inef- fective assistance of counsel. Submitted Mаrch 1989. however, failed to demonstrate that his at- June Decided 1989. alleged torney knew of the threats Thus, a trial. failure to cross-examine Rea

on this issue cannot be deemed ineffective

assistance counsel. State, It is contended this S.W.2d at prevented Williams v. misinformation cross-examining Morgan from movant as effec tively could have with the correct informa 3. The State contends that Williams never compelling and, do tion. We not find the evidence presented this to the claim trial court al- agreed prosecutors fact that in other had not court, though presented appellate to the prosecute. not to But makes no difference. procedural grounds state court it on dismissed Callaway county agent prosecutor The is an court, appellate rather than on merits. agreement by the ing through state. the state act however, stated, points, five in “[m]ovant’s num- prosecutor. The state is bound ber, alleging prosecutorial misconduct tire sim- prosecutors the deal and that includes ilarly lacking in merit.” Burson, other counties within the state. State v. S.W.2d at 288. ruled state court (Mo.App.1985); 698 S.W.2d 557 Santobello Williams, therefore, the merits of the claim and York, New 30 L.Ed.2d presenting is not barred from this it to court. misleading There was prosecution.

Case Details

Case Name: Doyle J. Williams v. Bill Armontrout, Warden

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Date Published: Aug 7, 1989

Citation: 877 F.2d 1376

Docket Number: 88-1027

Court Abbreviation: 8th Cir.