Deck v. Steele
Decision Date | 13 April 2017 |
Docket Number | Case No. 4:12 CV 1527 CDP. |
Citation | Deck v. Steele, 249 F.Supp.3d 991 (E.D. Mo. 2017) |
Parties | Carman L. DECK, Petitioner, v. Troy STEELE, et al., Respondents. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Elizabeth U. Carlyle, Kansas City, MO, Kevin L. Schriener, Law and Schriener, LLC, St. Louis, MO, for Petitioner.
Katharine Anne Dolin, Stephen D. Hawke, Attorney General of Missouri, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondents.
Petitioner Carman L. Deck is currently on death row at the Potosi Correctional Center in Mineral Point, Missouri, for the murders of James and Zelma Long.Deck was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Missouri, and was sentenced to death for each of the two murders.He is also serving two concurrent life sentences for two counts of armed criminal action, as well as consecutive sentences of thirty years' and fifteen years' imprisonment for one count of robbery and one count of burglary, respectively.Because Deck is serving consecutive sentences, Missouri Attorney GeneralJosh Hawley is added to this case as a proper partyrespondent.1
This action is before me now on Deck's request for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.He raises numerous claims that his conviction and death sentences were obtained in violation of his constitutional rights.Because the facts underlying Deck's claims have been fully developed through the records submitted to the Court and no further development was necessary, I did not hold an evidentiary hearing on the claims.SeeSweet v. Delo , 125 F.3d 1144, 1160(8th Cir.1997).
I have carefully reviewed the extensive record in this case and the arguments of the parties and find that Deck is entitled to habeas relief on his claim that he was denied a fundamentally fair penalty trial because of delay not attributable to him, and for counsel's ineffectiveness in failing to pursue this meritorious claim before the trial court.I will therefore grant his petition for writ of habeas corpus on these bases.None of Deck's other claims merit relief.
The following recitation of facts comes from the Missouri Supreme Court's opinion affirming Deck's conviction on the first direct appeal in this case:
State v. Deck , 994 S.W.2d 527, 531–32(Mo. banc 1999)( Deck I ).
The jury returned its guilty verdicts on February 20, 1998, and recommended death for the two counts of murder.The trial court sentenced Deck on April 27, 1998, in accordance with the jury's recommendation.On June 1, 1999, the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed Deck's conviction and sentence.Deck I. Deck thereafter sought post-conviction relief under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15, which was denied after an evidentiary hearing.On appeal of the denial of the motion, the Missouri Supreme Court found that Deck received ineffective assistance of trial counsel in relation to the submission of jury instructions on mitigation and remanded the matter for a new penalty-phase trial.Deck v. State , 68 S.W.3d 418(Mo. banc 2002)( Deck II ).The court concluded that, given the particular facts of the case in which substantial mitigating evidence was offered, there was a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different absent counsel's errors.Id. at 431.
A second penalty-phase trial began on April 29, 2003, and again resulted in a jury's recommendation of death for both murders.On June 30, 2003, the trial court entered judgment consistent with the recommendation.The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the sentence on May 25, 2004.State v. Deck , 136 S.W.3d 481(Mo. banc 2004).After granting certiorari, the United States Supreme Court reversed this judgment, finding that Deck's visible shackling during the second penalty proceeding violated his constitutional right to due process.Deck v. Missouri , 544 U.S. 622, 125 S.Ct. 2007, 161 L.Ed.2d 953(2005).The matter was remanded for further proceedings.
Upon remand, a third penalty-phase trial was held in September 2008, after which a jury again recommended death for the two murders, and the trial court entered judgment in accordance with the recommendation.This judgment was affirmed by the Missouri Supreme Court on January 26, 2010.State v. Deck , 303 S.W.3d 527(Mo. banc 2010)( Deck III ).The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari on June 28, 2010.Deck v. Missouri , 561 U.S. 1028, 130 S.Ct. 3505, 177 L.Ed.2d 1095(2010).Deck's motion for post-conviction relief under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15 was denied after an evidentiary hearing.The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief on July 3, 2012.Deck v. State , 381 S.W.3d 339(Mo. banc 2012)( Deck IV ).
Deck initiated this proceeding for federal habeas corpus relief on August 27, 2012.Upon the appointment of counsel, Deck filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus on August 14, 2013.An amended petition was filed later that same date and is presently before the Court for determination.The respondents have responded to the claims raised in the petition, and Deck has filed a Traverse to that response.The parties also filed supplemental briefs on procedural default.
In his amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, Deck raises thirty-two grounds for relief:
Guilt Phase
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
State v. Lopez
...property." Id.{13} Following Betterman, at least one federal district court has chosen to use the Barker factors in analyzing claims of delayed sentencing under a due process analysis. See
Deck v. Steele, 4:12 CV 1527 CDP, 2017 WL 1355437, *58, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___ (E.D. Mo. Apr. 13, 2017). Other jurisdictions, including Montana and the Federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, have rejected the Barker factors and instead have looked to the due process analysis set out in United States... -
Clayton v. Steele
...'professionally competent assistance' under Strickland, because the evidence was, in fact, admissible." Williams v. Lawrence, No., 2011 WL 6097127, at *6 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 7, 2011) (citation omitted); see also
Deck v. Steele, 249 F. Supp. 3d 991, 1029 (E.D. Mo. 2017)("Post-conviction counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to pursue a non-meritorious claim."). "Based on the foregoing and the other evidence of record, and considering defense counsel's conduct based on his perspective... -
State v. Lopez
...{13} Following Betterman , at least one federal district court has chosen to use the Barker factors in analyzing claims of delayed sentencing under a due process analysis. See
Deck v. Steele , 4:12 CV 1527 CDP, 2017 WL 1355437, *58, 249 F.Supp.3d 991 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 13, 2017). Other jurisdictions, including Montana and the Federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, have rejected the Barker factors and instead have looked to the due process analysis set out in United States... -
Parish v. Steele, Case No. 4:17CV985 RLW
...unnecessary[.]" Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691. "There is no per se rule that failure to interview witnesses constitutes ineffective assistance because such claimsturn on their individual facts."
Deck v. Steele, 249 F. Supp. 3d 991, 1027 (E.D. Mo. 2017)(citing Sanders v. Trickey, 875 F.2d 205, 209 (8th Cir. 1989)). To succeed on a claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate, Parish may not base his claim on conclusory allegations but rather must allege what...