finding that State had a duty to advise defendant’s counsel that plea bargain had been made with witness where prior discussion of the matter gave clear indication to the defendant’s counsel that there had been no bargain
How later courts described this case
- finding that State had a duty to advise defendant’s counsel that plea bargain had been made with witness where prior discussion of the matter gave clear indication to the defendant’s counsel that there had been no bargain
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BILLINGS, Judge,
dissenting.
Because I would defer to the findings and conclusions of the trial court, I would affirm the judgment denying post-conviction relief under Rule 27.26.
I suggest that the principal opinion applies a de novo standard of review to the evidentiary hearing, rather than limiting our review to a “determination of whether the findings, conclusions, and judgment of the trial court are clearly erroneous.” Rule 27.26(j).
The defendant was fully aware of the pending charges against Arnold and elected to forego cross-examination of him as to whether he had struck a deal with the State in return for his testimony. By this strategy, defendant is now awarded a new trial.
I dissent.