Bolden v. Vandergriff
Decision Date | 22 February 2022 |
Docket Number | 4:19-CV-126 RLW |
Parties | DARRELL I. BOLDEN, Petitioner, v. DAVID VANDERGRIFF, [1] Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Darrell I Bolden's pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody. (ECF No 1.) Petitioner is incarcerated at the Eastern Reception Diagnostic and Correctional Center (“ERDCC”). For the following reasons, the Court will grant the Petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the claim that Petitioner was unconstitutionally denied the right to a Faretta hearing following his unequivocal requests to represent himself, and deny it in all other respects.[2]
Petitioner Darrell I. Bolden was charged by five separate indictments in St. Louis County, Missouri. The five indictments were consolidated into one case in November 2013 over Petitioner's objections. The indictments were tried together in February 2014 under case number 13SL-CR02123 (21st Jud. Cir., State of Mo.). Petitioner faced eleven felony counts as a persistent felony offender.
On February 6, 2014, a jury convicted Petitioner of three counts of first-degree robbery, one count of attempted first-degree robbery, and three counts of armed criminal action. State v. Bolden, No. 13SL-CR02123-01 (21st Jud. Cir., State of Mo.). On March 19, 2014, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to life imprisonment on each of the first-degree robbery counts, fifteen years' imprisonment for the attempted first-degree robbery, and twenty-five years' imprisonment for each armed criminal action count. Petitioner's sentences are concurrent, except for one count of armed criminal action that is consecutive, so his sentence is for life imprisonment plus twenty-five years.
Petitioner appealed his conviction to the Missouri Court of Appeals, which affirmed on May 5, 2015. State v. Bolden, No. ED 101297, 489 S.W.3d 821 (Mo.Ct.App. 2014) (per curiam) (unpublished mem.) (Resp. Ex. C, ECF No. 14-3). The Missouri Court of Appeals' mandate was issued on May 28, 2015. Id.
Petitioner filed a pro se motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15 on June 1, 2015 (Resp. Ex. J, ECF No. 14-10 at 8-24). Appointed counsel filed an amended motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 29.15 on September 28, 2015. (ECF No. 14-10 at 31-49). The motion court held an evidentiary hearing on November 2, 2016, at which Petitioner and his trial counsel testified. The motion court denied the motion by written findings of fact and conclusions of law on November 18, 2016. Bolden v. State, No. 15SL-CC02092 (21st Jud. Cir., State of Mo.) (ECF No. 14-10 at 51-57). Petitioner filed a notice of appeal on March 22, 2017, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief on March 20, 2018. Bolden v. State, No. ED105327, 541 S.W.3d 715 (Mo.Ct.App. 2018) (per curiam) (unpublished mem.); (Resp. Ex. H, ECF No. 14-8 at 1-9). The court of appeals' mandate was issued on April 12, 2018 (Resp. Ex. I, ECF No. 14-9).
Petitioner filed his application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on January 28, 2019.
The Petition alleges eight grounds for relief:
Respondent filed a Response in opposition to the Petition with accompanying exhibits on May 17, 2019. (ECF No. 14.) Petitioner filed a letter to the Court (ECF No. 11), a Supplement to his Petition consisting of various exhibits (ECF No. 15), and a Traverse (ECF No. 16).
A district court may dismiss a habeas petitioner's motion without an evidentiary hearing if “(1) the movant's allegations, accepted as true, would not entitle the movant to relief, or (2) the allegations cannot be accepted as true because they are contradicted by the record, inherently incredible, or conclusions rather than statements of fact.” Buster v. United States, 447 F.3d 1130, 1132 (8th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Sanders v. United States, 341 F.3d 720, 722 (8th Cir. 2003)). Because the Court determines that Petitioner's claims other than his Sixth Amendment self-representation claim do not warrant habeas relief on their face, it will deny those claims without an evidentiary hearing. An evidentiary hearing is not necessary to determine that Petitioner is entitled to relief on his self-representation claim.
The Missouri Court of Appeals described the facts of Petitioner's criminal case as follows, in its memorandum supplementing the order affirming the judgment denying his post-conviction appeal:
(Resp. Ex. H, ECF No. 14-8 at 2-4) (footnotes 2-4 omitted).
Under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), federal courts review state court decisions under a deferential standard. Owens v Dormire, 198 F.3d 679, 681 (8th Cir. 1999). Federal habeas relief is available to a state prisoner “only on the ground that he is in...
To continue reading
Request your trial