David Vaughan v. Michael Groose

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMay 10, 1996
Docket95-2883
StatusUnpublished

This text of David Vaughan v. Michael Groose (David Vaughan v. Michael Groose) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
David Vaughan v. Michael Groose, (8th Cir. 1996).

Opinion

___________ No. 95-2883 ___________

David Dewayne Vaughan, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. David R. Dormire, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * ___________

Submitted: February 16, 1996

Filed: May 10, 1996 ___________

Before WOLLMAN, HEANEY, and MAGILL, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

David Dewayne Vaughan appeals from the district court's1 order dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

On May 6, 1988, Vaughan pleaded guilty to a charge of first degree murder in the circuit court of Jasper County, Missouri, and was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole.

Vaughan's motion for post-conviction relief under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 24.035 was denied as untimely filed. Vaughan v. State, 792 S.W.2d 427 (Mo. App. 1990). On August 31, 1990, Vaughan filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the district court. Following extended proceedings, the district court entered an order and judgment on May 4, 1995, dismissing the petition. On June 12, 1995, the district court entered an order denying Vaughan's motion to set aside the judgment of dismissal.

1 The Honorable Elmo B. Hunter, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing the petition on the ground that Vaughan had procedurally defaulted on the claims he alleged in his petition.

Because an extended opinion would be of no precedential value, we affirm on the basis of the district court's orders. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

We express our appreciation to appointed counsel for his diligent efforts on Vaughan's behalf.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

-2-

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

Related

Vaughan v. State
792 S.W.2d 427 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
David Vaughan v. Michael Groose, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-vaughan-v-michael-groose-ca8-1996.