Ronald May v. Donald Wyrick, Warden

635 F.2d 760, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 20992
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 15, 1981
Docket80-1731
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 635 F.2d 760 (Ronald May v. Donald Wyrick, Warden) 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
Ronald May v. Donald Wyrick, Warden, 635 F.2d 760, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 20992 (8th Cir. 1981).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Ronald May appeals the district court’s denial of his application for a writ of habe-as corpus. In June 1977, petitioner was convicted of manslaughter in the State of Missouri and was sentenced to ten years imprisonment.

Petitioner alleges that the state trial court committed four errors of constitutional magnitude. The four errors raised are as follows:

(1) the trial court allowed a key state witness to testify that she had received threats, as an attempt to explain her prior inconsistent statements;
(2) the evidence was insufficient to constitute a submissible case;
(3) the trial court refused to allow petitioner to call a certain defense witness;
(4) the trial court refused to give a requested self-defense instruction.

These claims are the same four raised by petitioner on direct appeal in state court. State v. May, 587 S.W.2d 331 (Mo.App.1979). The United States Magistrate also reviewed the same four issues under federal law and recommended that the application for a writ of habeas corpus be denied. The district court adopted the findings and recommendation of the magistrate.

We have carefully studied the record, including the magistrate’s findings and the briefs of the parties to this action. We find no merit to petitioner’s arguments, and accordingly affirm pursuant to Rule 14 of the Rules of this court on the basis of the magistrate’s findings as adopted by the district court.

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

Related

Steven R. Wycoff v. Crispus Nix, Warden
869 F.2d 1111 (Eighth Circuit, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
635 F.2d 760, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 20992, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ronald-may-v-donald-wyrick-warden-ca8-1981.