Brotherton v. Cassady
| Decision Date | 31 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:12-CV-2233 NAB |
| Parties | TOMMY WAYNE BROTHERTON, Petitioner, v. JAY CASSADY, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This action is before the Court on Petitioner Tommy Wayne Brotherton's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. [Doc. 1.] Respondent Jeff Norman filed a response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. [Doc. 14.] The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). [Doc. 11.] For the reasons set forth below, Brotherton's petition for writ of habeas corpus will be denied.
After a jury trial, Brotherton was convicted of first degree statutory sodomy and first degree child molestation for sexually abusing his daughter, R.B. (Resp't Ex. 1 at 57-58.) He was sentenced to life imprisonment on the statutory sodomy charge and fifteen years on the child molestation charge. Id. The following evidence, in the light most favorable to the verdict, waspresented at trial.2 The evidence against Brotherton consisted of a video in which he confessed to molesting R.B. but denied ever penetrating her and a video of R.B.'s forensic interview. One of the officers who arrested Brotherton testified, as did the forensic interviewer, and R.B. R.B. testified that Brotherton began sexually abusing her when she was approximately five years old. She further testified that Brotherton forced her to engage in oral, vaginal, and anal intercourse. Although Brotherton vehemently denied penetrating R.B.'s anus, R.B. told the forensic interviewer that, "It hurt sometimes when he slipped and it went into my butt...." At trial, R.B. testified that Brotherton's penis entered her anus and that "he didn't actually get it in very far, but he did slip when he was doing it." She further explained this happened several times and Brotherton told her he had "slipped," but "stopped telling me because I knew that, what he was going to say...."
During deliberations, the jurors submitted notes requesting a dictionary and to rewatch the video of R.B.'s interview to determine the sodomy charge. (Resp't Ex. 1 at 49-50.) The trial court instructed them to be guided by the instructions and verdict forms given to them. Id. at 51. The jury found Brotherton guilty of both first degree child molestation and first degree statutory sodomy.
Before trial, the court held a hearing on Brotherton's motion to suppress his confession. The following was the evidence presented at the suppression hearing.3 Detective Sergeant Chris Bartlett and Detective Shannon Bowen arrested Brotherton on October 11, 2006, followingR.B.'s forensic interview. Brotherton was arrested at SSM St. Joseph Health Center ("St. Joseph's") where he was receiving mental health services. The officers testified that Brotherton was lethargic, and that hospital staff had informed them that Brotherton had been given psychotropic medication. The officers advised Brotherton of his Miranda rights and Brotherton agreed to be interviewed by the officers. The court denied the Brotherton's motion, finding that Brotherton's statements were voluntary and that he had been Mirandized and knowingly and intelligently waived his rights. (Resp't Ex. 8 at 29.)
Following his conviction, Brotherton filed a direct appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on the statutory sodomy charge. (Resp't Ex. 2.) The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict, finding that the jury was entitled to resolve the conflict between Brotherton and R.B. in favor of R.B. (Resp't Ex. 3.)
Following his direct appeal, Brotherton filed a pro se Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct the Judgment or Sentence pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15. (Resp't Ex. 4 at 3-16.) Brotherton's post-conviction counsel filed a Statement in Lieu of Filing a Rule 29.15 Amended Motion, stating that there were no additional meritorious claims to be raised in an amended motion and no additional facts to support the claims raised in Brotherton's pro se motion. Id. at 17-19. Brotherton filed a response, objecting to the failure to file an amended motion and requesting new counsel. Id. 20-21. The post-conviction motion court summarily denied Brotherton's Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. Id. at 22-23.
Brotherton appealed the denial of his post-conviction motion to the Missouri Court of Appeals. (Resp't Ex. 5.) He raised two points on appeal: (1) that the motion court erred in failing to grant an evidentiary hearing with respect to his claim that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate and adduce evidence of Brotherton's mental incompetency and (2) thatthe motion court erred in failing to enter adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law. Id. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Brotherton's Rule 29.15 motion. (Resp't Ex. 6.) The court found that Brotherton had not properly plead his ineffectiveness claim before the motion court and the court did not reach his second point. Id.
Brotherton then filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this court on November 28, 2012. [Doc 1.] The Respondent filed a response in opposition. [Doc 14.] Brotherton filed a reply. [Doc. 21.]
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 91 (2011). "In general, if a convicted state criminal defendant can show a federal habeas court that his conviction rests upon a violation of the Federal Constitution, he may well obtain a writ of habeas corpus that requires a new trial, a new sentence, or release." Trevino v. Thaler, 133 S.Ct. 1911, 1917 (2013). The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (AEDPA) applies to all petitions for habeas relief filed by state prisoners after this statute's effective date of April 24, 1996. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 326-29 (1997). In conducting habeas review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a federal court is limited to deciding whether a claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court proceedings (1) resulted in a decision that is contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court, or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). A determination of a factual issue made by a state court ispresumed to be correct unless the petitioner successfully rebuts the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1).
For purposes of § 2254(d)(1), the phrase "clearly established federal law refers to the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of Court's decisions as of the time of the relevant state court decision." Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71 (2003). "In other words, clearly established federal law under § 2254(d)(1) is the governing legal principle or principles set forth by the Supreme Court at the time the state court renders its decision." Id. at 72. To obtain habeas relief, a habeas petitioner must be able to point to the Supreme Court precedent which he thinks the state courts acted contrary to or unreasonably applied. Buchheit v. Norris, 459 F.3d 849, 853 (8th Cir. 2006).
A state court's decision is "contrary to" clearly established Supreme Court precedent "if the state court either 'applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [Supreme Court] cases' or 'confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of [the] Court and nevertheless arrives at a result different from [the] precedent.'" Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782, 792 (2001) (citing Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-406 (2000)). A state court decision is an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent if it correctly identifies the governing legal rule but applies it unreasonably to the facts of a particular prisoner's case. Id. (citing Williams, 529 U.S. at 407-408). "A federal habeas court making the unreasonable application inquiry should ask whether the state court's application of clearly established federal law was objectively unreasonable." Penry, 532 U.S. at 793. "A state court decision involves 'an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings,' 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2), only if it is shown that the state court's presumptively correct factual findings do not enjoy support in the record."Evanstad v. Carlson, 470 F.3d 777, 782 (8th Cir. 2006). A "readiness to attribute error is inconsistent with the presumption that state courts know and follow the law." Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24 (2002). AEDPA's highly deferential standard demands that state court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt. Id.
Brotherton contends that he did not validly waive his Miranda rights before making a confession. He asserts that he was not Mirandized and that he invoked his right to counsel in the car ride to the Sheriff's Department following his arrest. This claim is procedurally defaulted because Brotherton did not raise it in his direct appeal or at any stage of his post-conviction proceedings. Sweet v. Delo, 125 F.3d 1144, 1149 (8th Cir. 1997). Brotherton has not demonstrated adequate cause to excuse the default. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991).
Even if the claim is not procedurally defaulted, it lacks merit. At the suppression hearing, Detective Sergeant Chris Bartlett and Detective Shannon Bowen testified that Bartlett read Brotherton his Miranda...
To continue reading
Request your trial