Daniels v. Jones, 90-2173
Decision Date | 11 September 1991 |
Docket Number | No. 90-2173,90-2173 |
Citation | 944 F.2d 429 |
Parties | Steven Gail DANIELS, Appellant, v. Jimmy JONES, Superintendent, Missouri Training Center for Men, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Joseph Blanton, Jr., Sikeston, Mo., for appellant.
William Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Mo., for appellee.
Before FAGG and BEAM, Circuit Judges, and DOTY *, District Judge.
Steven Gail Daniels appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.
Following his conviction and sentence for second-degree murder, Daniels unsuccessfully pursued a direct appeal, State v. Daniels, 649 S.W.2d 568 (Mo.Ct.App.1983), and postconviction relief, Daniels v. State, 751 S.W.2d 399 (Mo.Ct.App.1988), in the Missouri state courts. Daniels then filed this federal habeas action raising a number of claims, including claims not raised in the Missouri courts. Concluding Daniels had exhausted his available state remedies, the district court denied as procedurally barred the claims not raised in the state courts. The district court denied Daniels's remaining claims on the merits.
On appeal Daniels contends the district court committed error in concluding he had exhausted his available state remedies. Daniels argues that although he failed to raise certain claims on direct appeal or in his state postconviction proceedings, he can still pursue these claims in a state habeas corpus action under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 91. Thus, Daniels contends the district court should have dismissed his petition without prejudice to allow him to raise his claims in state court. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510, 520-22, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 1199, 1204-05, 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982). We disagree.
We have reviewed applicable Missouri law and conclude Daniels has no available, nonfutile state remedies. Although given several opportunities, the Missouri Supreme Court has not yet defined the contours of state habeas corpus under rule 91. See Schlup v. Armontrout, 941 F.2d 631, 636-37 (8th Cir.1991) (citing cases). Nevertheless, it is clear under Missouri law that state habeas corpus relief is unavailable on claims that could have been raised on direct appeal or during state postconviction proceedings, except in limited circumstances not applicable in this case. See Kilgore v. State, 791 S.W.2d 393, 396 (Mo.1990) ( )(en banc); White v. State, 779 S.W.2d 571, 572 (Mo.1989) ( )(en banc). Our reading of Missouri law is supported by the fact the Missouri Supreme Court has consistently denied habeas corpus relief to prisoners asserting claims "that could have been raised on direct appeal or in a [postconviction] proceeding." Byrd v. Delo, 941 F.2d 631, 638 (8th Cir.1991); see also id. at 639.
In this case, each of the claims the district court denied as procedurally barred were known and available to Daniels when Daniels sought...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Foster v. Delo
...v. Armontrout, 976 F.2d 1130, 1136 (8th Cir.1992), cert. denied. --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 2357, 124 L.Ed.2d 265 (1993); Daniels v. Jones, 944 F.2d 429 (8th Cir.1991). B. Foster makes three arguments relating to the jury instructions given at the close of the penalty phase of Foster's trial.......
-
WHEADON v. Higgins, 91-1189C(8).
...91 or the use of that remedy for exhaustion purposes, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has spoken on the issue. In Daniels v. Jones, 944 F.2d 429 (8th Cir.1991), the Court held that "under Missouri law ... state habeas relief is unavailable on claims that could have been raised on direct......
-
Griffin v. Dormire
...federal grounds. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 6-7, 103 S.Ct. 276, 74 L.Ed.2d 3 (1982); Daniels v. Jones, 944 F.2d 429, 430 (8th Cir.1991). The Court will proceed to consider petitioner's alleged federal habeas grounds on their Factual Background. The trial evid......
-
Baker v. Steele
...(Doc. 1). Nor does Baker have the ability to raise these claims in a state habeas corpus action under Missouri Rule 91. See Daniels v. Jones, 944 F.2d 429, 430 (1991) (holding that a Missouriprisoner had exhausted his state remedies even without filing a state habeas corpus action, because ......