Bond v. Warden, NHSP

2004 DNH 153
CourtDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire
DecidedOctober 13, 2004
DocketCV-03-450-PB
StatusPublished

This text of 2004 DNH 153 (Bond v. Warden, NHSP) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bond v. Warden, NHSP, 2004 DNH 153 (D.N.H. 2004).

Opinion

Bond v . Warden, NHSP CV-03-450-PB 10/13/04

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Kenneth Bond

v. Civil N o . 03-450-PB Opinion No. 2004 DNH 153 Jane Coplan, Warden, NHSP

O R D E R

Kenneth Bond pleaded guilty to one count of simple assault,

one count of obstructing the report of a crime, one count of

false imprisonment, one count of criminal threatening, and one

count of reckless conduct. He was sentenced to concurrent 12

month House of Correction sentences on the simple assault and

obstruction charges, a consecutive 12 month House of Correction

sentence on the false imprisonment charge, and 1-1/2 to 3 year

suspended state prison sentences on the criminal threatening and

reckless conduct charges. He was also sentenced to three years

of probation on the latter charges. Bond subsequently violated

his probation and was sentenced to 3-1/2 to 7 years in state

prison. He argues in his habeas corpus petition that this sentence should be set aside because the attorney who represented

him at the guilty plea hearing was ineffective.

Bond’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims are based on

the factual premise that his attorney failed to advise him when

he plead guilty that he could face an additional prison sentence

of up to 3-1/2 to 7 years if he violated the terms of his

probation. A state court judge who considered the same arguments

that Bond presents in his current petition supportably rejected

this premise and Bond has failed to present clear and convincing

evidence to rebut the judge’s factual findings on this point.

That ends the matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1).

The motion for summary judgment (doc. n o . 7 ) is granted. I

commend Attorney Ruoff for the quality of his legal work in this

case. SO ORDERED.

Paul Barbadoro Chief Judge

October 1 3 , 2004

cc: David Ruoff, Esq. Kenneth Bond, pro se

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2004 DNH 153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bond-v-warden-nhsp-nhd-2004.