Bolden v. Vandergriff

Decision Date22 February 2022
Docket Number4:19-CV-126 RLW
PartiesDARRELL I. BOLDEN, Petitioner, v. DAVID VANDERGRIFF, [1] Respondent.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RONNIE L. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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]

Procedural History

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 State v. Bolden, No. ED 101297, 489 S.W.3d 821 (Mo.Ct.App. 2014) (per curiam) (unpublished mem.)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.

Grounds Raised

The Petition alleges eight grounds for relief:

(1) The trial court erred when it refused to grant Bolden's request to represent himself at trial;
(2) The trial court erred when it refused to dismiss Bolden's cases based on a violation of his right to a speedy trial;
(3) Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present testimony from Bolden concerning threats and promises made to him by an FBI Agent, at a hearing on Bolden's motion to suppress his statements to police;
(4) Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call an FBI DNA Analyst as a witness to testify concerning DNA taken from a stocking cap found at the scene of one robbery;
(5) Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to hire a DNA expert to challenge the State's presentation of DNA evidence from the stocking cap;
(6) Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to establish that Bolden was indigent and to request allocated funds to retain a DNA expert under § 600.086, Missouri Revised Statutes;
(7) Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate, subpoena, and call Richelle Boyd and Michelle Williams as alibi witnesses; and
(8) The State failed to disclose material evidence and information regarding an alternate suspect.

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.

Factual Background

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:

A. Robberies and Arrest
Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the following evidence was presented at trial. Between May 7, 2012 and June 4, 2012, five robberies were committed at separate locations in St. Louis County, Richmond Heights, Bridgeton, and Overland. Witnesses to each robbery testified regarding the incidents and described the assailant as a light-to-medium skinned black male about six feet tall, wearing a ski mask, and carrying a silver handgun.
During the robbery at Mattress Firm, an employee attempted to strike the gun from the assailant's hand. The men stumbled into the parking lot, and the assailant's ski mask fell off his head. The assailant ran away. When police arrived, they seized two ski masks. The ski masks were sent to the police crime laboratory where they were swabbed for DNA analysis. The crime lab matched the DNA profile found on the ski masks to Movant's DNA profile in the CODIS system from a prior arrest.
On September 12, 2012, Movant was arrested. Movant denied involvement in any of the robberies. However, Movant provided a buccal swab for DNA analysis, which was tested and matched the DNA profile found on the ski masks. On September 13, Movant was questioned by two FBI Agents, regarding a bank robbery committed in Illinois as well as the five robberies in Missouri. Movant denied committing either of the robberies. The next day, the FBI Agents again interviewed Movant. Shortly thereafter, Movant met with the lead detectives investigating the Missouri robberies and confessed to each robbery. Prior to each confession, Movant was read his Miranda rights, signed a waiver form, and waived his right to have an attorney present.
Movant was charged with four counts of first-degree robbery, in violation of Section 569.020; one count of attempted first-degree robbery, in violation of Section 564.011; one count of first-degree assault, in violation of 565.050; and five counts of armed criminal action, in violation of Section 571.015.
B. Motion to Suppress Hearing and Trial
Prior to trial, defense counsel filed motions to suppress Movant's statements, alleging, inter alia, the confessions were involuntary because of “threats and promises made to defendant prior to and during the interrogation[.] At the suppression hearing, the State called the five detectives who took Movant's statements. Each detective testified that no threats or promises were made to Movant to induce his confessions. Defense counsel did not call Movant to testify nor did the State call the FBI Agents. Following the hearing, the trial court denied the motions to suppress.
A jury trial was held. Ultimately, the jury found Movant guilty of three counts of first-degree robbery, one count of attempted first-degree robbery, and three counts of armed criminal action.5 The jury was hung on one count of first-degree robbery and the associated count of armed criminal action, and the State filed a Memorandum of Nolle Prosequi, dismissing those charges. Movant was sentenced to life imprisonment on the counts of first-degree robbery, twenty-five years' imprisonment on the counts of armed criminal action, and fifteen years' imprisonment on the count of attempted first-degree robbery. The trial court ordered that all sentences run concurrently, except for one count of armed criminal action, for a total sentence of life imprisonment plus twenty-five years.
5 Following the close of evidence but prior to the jury's deliberation, the State dismissed the charge of first-degree assault and the associated charge of armed criminal action.

(Resp. Ex. H, ECF No. 14-8 at 2-4) (footnotes 2-4 omitted).

Legal Standard

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

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT