Dunbar v. State (Per Curiam)
Annotate this CaseAppellant pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery and was sentenced to 240 months’ imprisonment. Appellant filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, apparently asserting a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and referring to the sentencing order and to the standard for determining when a writ of habeas corpus should issue. The circuit court denied the petition, finding that Appellant’s allegations were conclusory. Appellant appealed, making several allegations of error. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying the petition because Appellant’s allegations were either not cognizable in a habeas proceeding or conclusory statements that provided no basis for granting habeas relief.
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.