Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03028/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03028-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

SEP 11 1992 

URITBD STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

ROBERT L. HOECK3~ 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk 

JOHN DANILE BRUNER, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

RAYMOND ROBERTS and ATTORNEY ) 

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF KANSAS, ) 

) 

Respondents-Appellees. ) 

No. 92-3028 

(D.C. No. 89-3497-S) 

(D. Kansas) 

ORDER AND JUDGHEN'l'* 

Before MOORE, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

This is an appeal from the denial of a petition filed by a 

state prisoner for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 u.s.c. S 2254. 

Before us also is an application for a certificate of probable 

cause and a motion for leave to proceed on appeal without 

prepayment of costs. The application and the motion are GRANTED, 

but the judgment of the district court is AFFIRHED. 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-3028 Document: 010110322268 Date Filed: 09/11/1992 Page: 1
John Danile Bruner is presently serving a sentence of life 

without parole in Kansas for the murder of his wife. His 

conviction was affirmed on direct appeal by the state courts, and 

he has proceeded, by collateral attack, to challenge his 

conviction on the ground that he was denied effective assistance 

of counsel. Having exhausted his state remedies without success, 

he turned to the United States District Court for the District of 

Kansas. 

After reviewing the record, including a transcript of an 

evidentiary hearing conducted by the state court into the issue, 

the district court concluded Mr. Bruner was not denied his right 

to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. We have reviewed 

the same records as well as the briefs of both parties and come to 

the same conclusion. 

Petitioner's basic position is that his state trial counsel 

was ineffective because he failed to call certain witnesses who 

could have rebutted key evidence presented by the state. Our 

review of the testimony confirms the findings made by the district 

court on these claims, and we conclude that those findings were 

not clearly erroneous. Indeed, they were absolutely correct. We 

therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court on the grounds 

set forth in its memorandum and order of January 6, 1992. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-3028 Document: 010110322268 Date Filed: 09/11/1992 Page: 2