Plunk v. Hobb, No. 12-1309 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePetitioner challenged his 2007 state-court convictions and resulting 72-year sentence for various felony offenses. Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus claiming ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. The court concluded that the district court erred in determining that trial counsel's dual representation of defendant and his girlfriend was not a conflict of interest that adversely affected counsel's performance where counsel was prevented from exploring other possible plea negotiations that would have been more favorable to defendant. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Prisoner case - Habeas. The district court erred in concluding that Plunk's trial attorney's dual representation of Plunk and Plunk's girlfriend was not a conflict of interest that adversely affected the attorney's performance; reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether Plunk waived the conflict of interest presented by his attorney's dual representation.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.