Beauclair v. Goddard
| Decision Date | 12 February 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 10-3128-SAC |
| Parties | DANNY E. BEAUCLAIR, Petitioner, v. JOHNNIE GODDARD, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
This case comes before the Court on Petitioner's motion for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 USC § 2254, and on Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the Court's order denying release on bail pending a decision on the 2254 motion. Petitioner, currently in custody at El Dorado Correctional Facility, brings over twenty-five claims for relief.
The procedural background of this case is undisputed.
The underlying facts, as stated by the Kansas Court of Appeals, follow:
Between January 1997-January 1999, Beauclair resided with M.M., his stepdaughter, who was born in January 1985. During their joint residence, Beauclair penetrated M.M.'s vagina with his fingers and penis, penetrated her anus with his penis, and performed oral sex on her. All of those incidents occurred while M.M. was under age 14. During the course of the criminal investigation, Beauclair had admittedto committing the offenses to a therapist employed by the Wyandotte County Mental Health Center and a therapist employed by the Topeka Police Department.
State v. Beauclair, 223 P.3d 837, 2010 WL 596992 (Kan.App. 2010) (unpublished opinion).
Petitioner was charged with one count of rape of a child under 14 years of age and one count of aggravated criminal sodomy with a child under 14 years of age. After the preliminary examination, the State added another charge of rape of a child under 14 years of age, and the trial court bound Petitioner over on all three charges. Petitioner stood silent and the court entered a not guilty plea on his behalf.
During a break in jury selection, the parties informed the court that Petitioner would be entering a plea to one count of rape and one count of aggravated criminal sodomy, that the second rape charge would be dismissed, and that the parties would jointly recommend Petitioner be sent to the state hospital for mental evaluation and presentence report. Before accepting the plea, the trial court conducted a plea colloquy during which it incorrectly advised Petitioner of the possible maximum penalties for the charges. Instead of telling Petitioner of the correct possible penalties under the 1998 sentencing guidelines, the trial court told Petitioner of the possible penalties under the 1999 sentencing guidelines, which were lower.Specifically, the trial court told Petitioner that he would likely receive 165 months' incarceration for rape and 123 months for aggravated criminal sodomy.
The trial court also failed to obtain any factual basis for the plea before accepting Petitioner's plea. Nevertheless, after a short recess, the trial court required the State to present a factual basis for the charges. Petitioner admitted to the facts as alleged in the State's factual basis, and the court stated that the plea would remain as previously indicated.
The court subsequently requested that both parties submit briefs regarding which year's sentencing guidelines should apply. The State argued that the 1997-98 sentencing guidelines should apply, and the Petitioner essentially agreed.
At a hearing on January 28, 2002, the following exchange occurred:
R. Vol. XI, p. 2-3. Neither the Petitioner nor his counsel voiced any disagreement.
At the sentencing hearing, the Court reiterated its finding that the 97-98 guidelines applied, resulting in a sentencing range of 184-206 for the rape charge and 136-154 months for the aggravated criminal sodomy charge. None of Petitioner's attorneys took issue with that finding. After hearing evidence and arguments of counsel, the Court denied Petitioner's motion for departure, saying:
And the Court has the discretion to allow probation and to allow a departure. But, I am respectfully denying that request and that motion. I do not find that substantial and compelling reasons exist in this case to depart . . . I am going to sentence the defendant to 148 months in the custody of the Secretary of Corrections on Count 1, 136 months on Count 2; those will be run concurrent (sic).
(R.XII, 127).
Soon thereafter, the court notified the State that it had transposed the numbers on the sentencing for Count 1 and had intended to sentence Petitioner to 184 months' incarceration instead of 148 months'. At a subsequent hearing, the court again noted that it had misspoken at the original sentencing and had intended to sentence Petitioner to 184 months imprisonment. The court then sentenced Petitioner to 184 months on that Count.
Petitioner appealed, raising two issues: 1) whether the trial court erred in sentencing Petitioner to 184 months' instead of 148 months' imprisonment; and 2) whether the trial court erred in classifying Petitioner as a predatory sex offender. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence, State v. Beauclair, 67 P.3d 180 (Table) (April 11, 2003) (unpublished opinion), and the Kansas Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review.
Petitioner then filed his first motion to withdraw his plea and set aside his conviction. Beauclair asserted the following reasons for withdrawing his plea: (1) he was not properly informed of the maximum penalties for the charges at the plea hearing because the trial court improperly cited the penalties from the 1999 sentencing guidelines instead of the 1998 sentencing guidelines; (2) his mental health issues prevented him from making a knowing and voluntary plea; (3) the trial court failed to determine a factual basis for his plea before accepting it; and (4) the victim's recantation constituted newly discovered evidence which would exonerate him. As an attachment to his motion, Beauclair included an affidavit from the victim in which she stated that the incidents giving rise to Beauclair'scharges never occurred and that she was coerced into making the allegations by SRS and by others.
The trial court held a hearing on Beauclair's motion. At the hearing, defense counsel chose to proceed on the arguments set out in the motion without further oral argument, and did not call the victim to testify about her recantation. The State then objected to the introduction of the victim's affidavit as hearsay, and the trial court sustained the State's objection, so her affidavit was not considered. The trial court denied Beauclair's motion.
Petitioner appealed and the Kansas Court of Appeals found that Beauclair did not knowingly and voluntarily enter a plea because he had been misinformed concerning the maximum possible penalty. See State v. Beauclair, 116 P.3d 55, 2005 WL 1805159 (2005) (unpublished opinion). But the Kansas Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, finding that the trial court's recitation during the plea colloquy of the incorrect potential maximum sentences Petitioner could receive did not render Petitioner's no contest plea unknowing or involuntary. See State v. Beauclair, 281 Kan. 230 (2006). The Court remanded the matter back to the Court of Appeals to consider three other issues raised in Petitioner's appeal that it had not ruled on initially.
Thereafter, the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court on those three other issues. See State v. Beauclair, 146 P.3d 709, 2006 WL3409225 (Kan.App. 2006) (unpublished opinion). It found: 1) Petitioner had the mental capacity to knowingly enter a no contest plea; 2) any trial court error in finding Petitioner guilty before establishing a factual basis for the plea was harmless, since the court cured that error immediately afterward; and 3) the trial court correctly declined to set aside Petitioner's plea based upon newly discovered evidence (the victim's affidavit recanting her earlier testimony) because Petitioner waived his right to confront his accusers by taking a plea, and recantations are looked upon "with upmost suspicion." Beauclair, 2006 WL 3409225 at 2. The Kansas Supreme Court denied the subsequent petition for review.
Petitioner later filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus which this Court dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies. Beauclair v. Roberts et al., 2007 WL 3054182 (D.Kan. 2007).
On August 1, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion for corrected sentence, which the court denied on September 5th. On August 31, 2007, Petitioner filed a second motion to withdraw plea and set aside judgment of conviction, which the court summarily denied on September 19, 2007.
Petitioner appealed the court's denial of his motion for corrected sentence, and later appealed the court's denial of his motion to withdraw hisplea, raising multiple issues. The Kansas Court of Appeals addressed such motions in accordance with the procedures disposing of K.S.A. 60-1507 motions, and found no error in the trial court's summary denial of Petitioner's successive motion to withdraw his plea.
Under K.S.A. 60-1507(c) and Kansas Supreme Court Rule 183(d) (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 251), a trial court shall not be required to entertain successive motions for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner. Nor is a trial court required to...
To continue reading
Request your trial