Clemons v. Steele
Decision Date | 28 November 2011 |
Docket Number | Case No. 4:11CV379 JCH |
Parties | REGINALD CLEMONS, Petitioner, v. TROY STEELE, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This matter is before the Court on Missouri State prisoner Reginald Clemons' pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter is fully briefed and ready for disposition.
On April 2, 2007, a jury in the Circuit Court of St. Genevieve County, Missouri, found Petitioner guilty of Committing Violence to a Department of Corrections Employee. (Resp. Ex. B, P. 251). On June 19, 2007, Petitioner was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment, with said sentence to run consecutive to the sentence he was serving at the time. (Id.) Petitioner thereafter appealed to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District. (Id., P. 253). The Missouri appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment on May 13, 2008. (Resp. Ex. E).
On October 15, 2008, Petitioner filed a pro se Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct the Judgment or Sentence of the Circuit Court of St. Genevieve County. (Resp. Ex. F, PP. 5-14). Counsel was appointed to represent Petitioner that same day (Id., P. 16), and on January 14, 2009, an Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence and Request for Evidentiary Hearing was filed. (Id., PP. 18-46). The trial court denied the motion without anevidentiary hearing. (Id., PP. 48-56). The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Petitioner's motion. (Resp. Ex. J).
Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the Potosi Correctional Center in Mineral Point, Missouri. As the Court construes the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus, Petitioner raises the following five claims for relief:
(Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody ("§ 2254 Petition"), PP. 6-12).
As stated above, in Ground 1 of his petition Petitioner asserts the trial court erred in failing to provide a self-defense instruction to the jury. (§ 2254 Petition, PP. 6-7). The Court's review of the record reveals that Petitioner failed to pursue this claim on direct appeal from his conviction and sentence.
A claim must be presented at each step of the judicial process in state court to avoid procedural default. Jolly v. Gammon, 28 F.3d 51, 53 (8th Cir.), citing Benson v. State, 611 S.W.2d538, 541 (Mo. App. 1980), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 983 (1994). Because Petitioner failed to raise this claim on direct appeal, the claim is defaulted and Petitioner is procedurally barred from pursuing it in this federal habeas proceeding. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731-32 (1991); Forest v. Delo, 52 F.3d 716, 719 (8th Cir. 1995); Keithley v. Hopkins, 43 F.3d 1216, 1217 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1163 (1995). Therefore, this Court cannot reach the merits of the claim absent a showing of cause and prejudice, or a demonstration "that failure to consider the claim[] will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice." Coleman, 501 U.S. at 750; Forest, 52 F.3d at 719; Keithley, 43 F.3d at 1217.
In his § 2254 petition, Petitioner apparently attempts to demonstrate cause for his failure to raise the claim in state court, by claiming his appellate attorneys refused to raise the claim on direct appeal. (§ 2254 Petition, P. 6). This Court need not decide whether Petitioner's allegation is sufficient to establish cause for the procedural default, however, because Petitioner fails to establish he suffered the requisite prejudice as a result of the alleged error. See infra, section B(1). In addition, because Petitioner makes no claim of actual innocence, he cannot satisfy the "fundamental miscarriage of justice" exception to the required showing of cause and prejudice. Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 115 S.Ct. 851, 130 L.Ed.2d 808 (1995); Washington v. Delo, 51 F.3d 756, 760-761 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 876 (1995). Therefore, the claim raised in Ground 1 of the instant petition is procedurally barred and must be denied.
As stated above, in Ground 4 of his § 2254 petition Petitioner asserts he was denied the right to confront his accuser. (§ 2254 Petition, PP. 9-10). In Ground 5, Petitioner asserts he was denied his sixth amendment right to have the jury provide a sentence recommendation. (Id., PP. 11-12). A review of the record reveals that Petitioner failed to pursue his fourth and fifth grounds for relief ondirect appeal from his conviction and sentence, in his amended 29.15 motion, or on appeal from the denial of that motion.
As noted above, a claim must be presented at each step of the judicial process in state court to avoid procedural default. Jolly, 28 F.3d at 53. Because Petitioner failed to raise these claims on either direct appeal or through the post-conviction motion process, the claims are defaulted and Petitioner is procedurally barred from pursuing them in this federal habeas proceeding. Coleman, 501 U.S. at 731-32; Forest, 52 F.3d at 719; Keithley, 43 F.3d at 1217. See also Jolly, 28 F.3d at 53 (citation omitted) ("Failure to raise a claim on appeal from the denial of a post-conviction motion erects a procedural bar to federal habeas review."). Therefore, this Court cannot reach the merits of the claims absent a showing of cause and prejudice, or a demonstration "that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice." Coleman, 501 U.S. at 750; Forest, 52 F.3d at 719; Keithley, 43 F.3d at 1217. Petitioner has not shown cause for his failure to raise the claims in state court.1 In addition, because Petitioner makes no claim of actual innocence, he cannot satisfy the "fundamental miscarriage of justice" exception to the required showing of cause and prejudice. Schlup, 513 U.S. 298; Washington, 51 F.3d at 760-761. Therefore, the claims raised in Grounds 4 and 5 of the instant petition are procedurally barred and must be denied.
As stated above, in Ground 2 of his petition Petitioner asserts he received ineffective assistance of counsel, in that trial counsel failed to request that a self-defense instruction be given to the jury. (§ 2254 Petition, PP. 6-7). Petitioner raised this claim in his 29.15 motion for pos-conviction relief, and the court denied the claim as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial