Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Dial v. Hannigan, 145 F.3d 1345, 10th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied Ronnie Dial's petition for habeas corpus. Dial argued that the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act and its retroactivity provision violated equal protection. Both Kansas state courts and the district court had previously rejected similar arguments. The Tenth Circuit was likewise unpersuaded, as Dial did not show his circumstances were similar to a prior case that supported retroactive application of the Guidelines. The court denied Dial's application for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-05-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 145 F.3d 1345 Docket: 97-3235

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied Ronnie Dial's petition for habeas corpus. Dial argued that the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act and its retroactivity provision violated equal protection. Both Kansas state courts and the district court had previously rejected similar arguments. The Tenth Circuit was likewise unpersuaded, as Dial did not show his circumstances were similar to a prior case that supported retroactive application of the Guidelines. The court denied Dial's application for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    4 views2 pages

    Dial v. Hannigan, 145 F.3d 1345, 10th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied Ronnie Dial's petition for habeas corpus. Dial argued that the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act and its retroactivity provision violated equal protection. Both Kansas state courts and the district court had previously rejected similar arguments. The Tenth Circuit was likewise unpersuaded, as Dial did not show his circumstances were similar to a prior case that supported retroactive application of the Guidelines. The court denied Dial's application for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    F I L E D

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    TENTH CIRCUIT

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit

    MAY 6 1998

    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk

    RONNIE DIAL,
    Petitioner - Appellant,

    v.

    ROBERT D. HANNIGAN and


    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
    KANSAS,

    No. 97-3235
    (D.C. No. 97-CV-3031)
    (D. Kan.)

    Respondents - Appellees.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    Before PORFILIO, KELLY, and HENRY, Circuit Judges. **
    Mr. Dial seeks to appeal from the denial of his habeas corpus petition, 28
    U.S.C. 2254. In his petition, Mr. Dial argues that the Kansas Sentencing
    Guidelines Act, as amended effective July 1, 1993, see Kan. Stat. Ann. 214701 to 21-4728 (1995), and its retroactivity provision, see id. 21-4724, violate
    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
    doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court
    generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
    and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
    *

    After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge
    panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material
    assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th
    Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
    **

    equal protection. Mr. Dials view essentially is that all convictions should be
    eligible for retroactive application of the Guidelines and that any equal protection
    challenge should be evaluatated on the basis of strict scrutiny.
    Both the Kansas state courts and the district court have rejected similar
    arguments. See Chiles v. State, 869 P.2d 707, 714-18 (Kan.), cert. denied, 513
    U.S. 850 (1994); Jones v. Bruce, 921 F. Supp. 708, 710-12 (D. Kan. 1996). We
    are likewise unpersuaded. Mr. Dial has not shown that his circumstances are
    similar to those in State v. Fierro, 895 P.2d 186, 189-91 (Kan. 1995), thus, Fierro
    does not support his position.
    We DENY Mr. Dials Application for a Certificate of Appealability and
    DISMISS the appeal. All pending motions are denied.

    Entered for the Court


    Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
    Circuit Judge

    -2-

    You might also like