Hawkins v. Schneider
| Decision Date | 10 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 4:13-CV-0313-JMB,4:13-CV-0313-JMB |
| Parties | JOHN DANIEL HAWKINS, JR., Petitioner, v. JANET SCHNEIDER, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
John Daniel Hawkins, Jr. (hereinafter "Hawkins") brings this pro se action, seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. All matters are pending before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge, with consent of the parties, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The Court concludes that the matter may be resolved on the existing record. The Court further concludes that the Petition should be denied and that no certificate of appealability should be issued.
Hawkins' circumstances are, in some senses, procedurally unique and require a fair amount of explanation to understand the context of Hawkins' petition. Hawkins' currentincarceration is the result of the interplay of three different felony convictions in the City of St. Louis. As a result, Hawkins has filed three separate petitions under § 2254. Table I broadly summarizes the procedural background of Hawkins' three federal habeas petitions.
TABLE I Charge State Cause No. Disposition E.D. Missouri Cause No. Drug Offenses 0722-CR02300 Plea & Sentence together with 0722-CR07453 Probation Revoked and 12-year sentence ordered executed on 4/30/2010
Status: Currently In Custody 4:13 CV 313 JMB
Burglary / Stealing 0722-CR07453 Plea & Sentence together with 0722-CR02300 Probation Revoked and 12-year sentence ordered executed on 4/30/2010
Status: Currently In Custody 4:13 CV 2325 JAR
Property Damage 0922-CR00705 Conviction after trial Sentenced to time served on 5/14/10 Status: Not In Custody 4:13 CV 2506 JMB
Although the present Memorandum and Order focuses on only one of Hawkins' petitions, the undersigned believes it would be useful to discuss, at least in part, the circumstances associated with Hawkins' convictions.
In 2007, Hawkins was charged with felony and misdemeanor drug offenses for crack cocaine and marijuana possession. (Cause number 0722-CR02300) That same year, Hawkins was also charged with burglary and stealing over $500. (Cause number 0722-CR07453) On June 2, 2008, Hawkins appeared for a plea hearing in both cases, which was conducted before the same Circuit Judge. Hawkins entered a traditional guilty plea to the misdemeanor drug charge, but chose to enter Alford3 guilty pleas to the felony drug charge and the burglary-related charges. (Resp. Exh. 1 at 96)
At the time of his pleas, the court made a detailed record regarding the factual basis for the pleas, as well as Hawkins' knowledge of his rights and the voluntary nature of his pleas. The record included, among other facts, that the State made plea offers to Hawkins which he rejected. (Id. at 84-85) Those plea offers, had they been accepted, would have subjected Hawkins to a lengthy term of imprisonment.
The trial court carefully advised Hawkins of his options regarding a trial or a plea, and ensured that Hawkins understood the maximum range of punishment he faced upon pleading guilty. (Id. at 86-87) Hawkins indicated that he did not want to plead guilty pursuant to the State's plea offers and that he hoped for a better sentence than the State was offering. The trial court advised Hawkins that there was no guarantee as to what sentence he might receive, other than it would be within the allowable range of punishment. (Id. at 88) The trial court also explained Hawkins' trial rights to him, including the power to subpoena witnesses to testify in his defense. (Id. at 90-92)
Before accepting Hawkins' guilty pleas, the court conducted a detailed inquiry into Hawkins' satisfaction with his attorney's performance. Hawkins represented to the court that he was satisfied with his attorney and had no complaints. Hawkins specifically advised the court that his attorney contacted all of the witnesses Hawkins wanted contacted. Hawkins' attorney advised that he subpoenaed the witness Hawkins had identified. (Id. at 92-94) Before allowing Hawkins to formally enter any pleas, the trial court gave him the opportunity to take a break and reconsider his decision with his attorney. (Id. at 95) After this detailed inquiry, and giving Hawkins additional time to consult with his attorney, the court permitted Hawkins to enter his Alford pleas to the felony charges in the two pending cases - 0722-CR02300 and 0722-CR07453. Hawkins also entered a traditional guilty plea to the misdemeanor marijuana charge. (Id. at 96-99) The record indicates that, after accepting Hawkins' pleas, the court released Hawkins from jail pending sentencing. (Id. at 108)
On August 22, 2008, the court sentenced Hawkins on the drug and burglary convictions. The court found that, based on his prior convictions, Hawkins qualified as a prior and persistent offender under Missouri law. The State recommended a sentence of ten years of imprisonment, while Hawkins requested a period of probation. The court sentenced Hawkins to a term of twelve years of imprisonment, but suspended the execution of that sentence and ordered Hawkins to serve five years of supervised probation on the felony convictions, and two years of unsupervised probation on the misdemeanor marijuana conviction. (Id. at 112-13) After announcing Hawkins' sentence, the court asked Hawkins if he had anything to say and offered to give Hawkins additional time to consult with his lawyer and come back. Hawkins declined the offer. (Id. at 114) Neither party objected to the sentence, as imposed on August 22, 2008.
Hawkins did not appeal his convictions and sentences in the drug possession and burglary cases (cause numbers 0722-CR02300 and 0722-CR07453, respectively).
Hawkins did not complete his term of probation successfully. In 2009, while he was on probation for the aforementioned drug and burglary convictions, Hawkins was charged with a new crime of property damage in the first degree (City of St. Louis cause number 0922-CR00705). (Id. at 124) Hawkins was tried, and on April 15, 2010, a jury convicted him on the property damage charge. As a result of the property damage conviction, on April 23, 2010, the court held a probation revocation hearing regarding Hawkins' 2008 drug and burglary convictions. (Id. at 121-29) Hawkins waived his right to a revocation hearing. Prior toaccepting Hawkins' waiver, however, the court took steps to ensure that Hawkins had sufficient time to discuss the revocation matter with his attorney, and recessed the matter so that Hawkins could further confer with his attorney. (Id. at 125-29) After conferring with his attorney, Hawkins affirmed his waiver of a revocation hearing. The court accepted Hawkins' waiver of a hearing, but before deciding on a sentence, the court adjourned the matter for a week to determine whether Hawkins qualified for any alternative programs.
On April 30, 2010, the court revoked Hawkins' probation and ordered that his sentences be executed in cause numbers 0722-CR02300 (drug offenses) and 0722-CR07453 (burglary offense), with credit for time served while Hawkins awaited disposition in the property damage case. The record indicates that the court intended for Hawkins to participate in a long-term substance abuse treatment program. (Id. at 129, 143)
At the conclusion of the April 30, 2010 revocation hearing, the trial court advised Hawkins of his rights and deadlines regarding post-conviction relief, pursuant to Mo. R. Crim. P. 24.035. (Id. at 145) Specifically, the trial court explained how Hawkins could challenge his convictions in cause numbers 0722-CR02300 and 0722-CR07453, including the applicable deadlines and forms needed to initiate the post-conviction review process. (Id. at 145-147)
The trial court again inquired as to Hawkins' satisfaction with his attorney. This time, however, Hawkins' stated that he was dissatisfied with his plea attorney's performance. (Id. 152-156) According to Hawkins, his attorney in the underlying cases advised him to plead guilty and that, had he gone to trial, he would have gone "up in a blaze of smoke." (Id. at 155) Hawkins stated that he advised his attorney of all of his witnesses and his attorney checked out those witnesses. (Id. at 151-52) Hawkins also stated that he knew the decision to plead guilty was his decision. (Id. at 153)
On May 14, 2010, in the property damage case, Hawkins was sentenced to one year of imprisonment, with credit for time served. The net effect of Hawkins' three convictions and sentences is that he will not serve more than twelve years in total, as the sentences ordered executed in the drug (0722-CR02300) and burglary (0722-CR0753) cases were concurrent. Hawkins has completed his sentence in the property damage case (0922-CR00705).
Hawkins did not initially challenge his conviction and suspended sentence in a direct appeal or by a post-conviction motion. After the court revoked his probation, however, Hawkins did seek to challenge the underlying convictions. On August 16, 2010, Hawkins filed a timely pro se post-conviction motion, pursuant to Missouri Rule 24.035. (Resp. Exh. 1 at 3) In his pro se motion, Hawkins raised three claims of ineffective assistance of counsel - each directed to his initial plea and sentencing counsel. Hawkins did not challenge the revocation of his probation or any claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with the revocation proceedings.
Although it is not entirely clear, Hawkins' first pro se claim appears to assert that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to seek suppression of evidence. (Id. at 4). Hawkins' second pro se claim alleges that his attorney should have objected to the twelve-year suspended sentence he received. (Id.) In his third pro se claim, Hawkins alleges his attorney should have...
To continue reading
Request your trial