Hollins v. Wallace
| Decision Date | 29 February 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:13CV00039 ACL |
| Parties | CASEY HOLLINS, Petitioner, v. IAN WALLACE, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This matter is before the Court on the Petition of Casey Hollins for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Hollins is currently incarcerated at Southeast Correctional Center in Charleston, Missouri, pursuant to the Sentence and Judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri. (Respt's Ex. B at 94-97.)
The state charged Hollins with two counts of assault in the first degree, two counts of armed criminal action, and two counts of unlawful use of a weapon for shooting at Tamara Williams and injuring Lorenzo Phillips. Id. at 21-23. On June 2, 2009, a jury found Hollins guilty of the three counts involving Williams, and not guilty of the three counts involving Phillips. Id. at 83-88. The court sentenced Hollins to concurrent terms of twenty-five years' imprisonment for the assault in the first degree and armed criminal action counts, and fifteen years' imprisonment for the unlawful use of a weapon count. Id. at 94-97.
Hollins raised two points on direct appeal of his convictions. (Respt's Ex. C.) In his first point, Hollins argued that the trial court plainly erred and exceeded its jurisdiction in sentencing Hollins to the Class A felony of assault in the first degree, in that the offense was charged as a Class B felony in the indictment and was submitted to the jury as a Class B felony. Id. at 8. In his second point, Hollins argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of all evidence on Count I because the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hollins intended to shoot at Williams. Id. at 9. The Missouri Court of Appeals granted Hollins's first point on appeal, holding that the trial court erred and exceeded its jurisdiction in sentencing Hollins to the Class A felony of assault in the first degree when the offense was charged as a Class B felony in the indictment and was submitted to the jury as a Class B felony. (Respt's Ex. E at 2.) The court remanded to the trial court with directions to correct the clerical error on the written judgment, changing it to reflect the Class B felony of assault in the first degree. Id. at 3. The court denied Hollins's second point on appeal and found that there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could have found that Williams was Hollins's intended target. Id. at 4.
Hollins filed a pro se motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 29.15. (Respt's Ex. F at 3-30.) After appointment of counsel, Hollins filed an amended post-conviction relief motion and request for evidentiary hearing, in which he alleged the following ineffective assistance of counsel claims: (1) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object during the cross-examination of Hollins when the prosecutor improperly asked Hollins about a prior arrest for assault in the second degree that had not resulted in a conviction; (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object, or to move to strike, on hearsay and Confrontation Clause grounds, Tamara Williams' testimony that she had heard rumors that Hollins had told others that if Hollins did not get the person responsible for shooting him, he would get Williams; (3) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to submit a lesser-included instruction on the Class C felony of assault in the second degree; and (4) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object when the prosecutor elicited Tamara Williams' testimony that her neighbors had been grazed by bullets allegedly fired by Hollins. Id.On September 20, 2011, the motion court denied Hollins' amended motion and request for an evidentiary hearing. Id. at 69-73.
Hollins raised the same claims on appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief that he raised in his amended post-conviction motion. (Respt's Ex. G.) The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the motion court. (Respt's Ex. I.)
Hollins filed a Petition in the instant habeas action on January 7, 2013, raising the following grounds for relief: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of first degree assault; (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the state's cross-examination of him about a prior arrest for an assault charge that did not result in a conviction; (3) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object on hearsay and Confrontation Clause grounds when Williams stated that she had heard rumors that Hollins wanted to harm her; (4) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to Williams' testimony that some of his shots struck additional persons; and (5) trial counsel should have submitted an instruction on the lesser-included offense of assault in the second degree. (Doc. 1.)
On January 11, 2013, Hollins filed a Motion to Amend Petition (Doc. 5), in which he requested leave to add the following twelve grounds for relief:
Id. at 3. On April 15, 2013, Respondent filed a Response to Order to Show Cause, in which he argued that Hollins' Motion to Amend should be denied because Hollins' claims lack particularized facts, and eight of the proposed claims are procedurally defaulted. (Doc. 10.) Respondent also argued that all of Hollins' claims raised in the original Petition and the Motion to Amend fail on their merits. The Court granted Hollins' Motion to Amend, but noted that the Court was not finding that Hollins' new grounds for relief were timely, that they had not been procedurally defaulted, or that they were meritorious. (Doc. 13.)
The Court's summary of the facts below is taken from the decision of the Missouri Court of Appeals on direct appeal. (Respt's Ex. E at 1-2.)
On June 20, 2008, Hollins drove by the building where Tammy Williams ("Williams") lived, and shouted that he was "healed up", that it was "time for war", and that he was about to get revenge. Hollins had been shot by a person standing outside Williams' building earlier in the month. About fifteen minutes after Hollins drove by Williams' house shouting, Williams was standing on her porch when she saw Hollins driving on the street in front of her building in a minivan with the driver's side closest to the building. Williams could see a gun held partially out the driver's side window, and someone yelled to get down. Then Williams heard between seven and nine gunshots.
Lorenzo Phillips ("Phillips") was standing next to Williams' car at the time the shots werefired and was struck in the foot by a bullet. Two other people were grazed by bullets.
Hollins was charged with Class B felony assault in the first degree, armed criminal action, and Class B felony unlawful use of a weapon.
Hollins' mother, Mariethia Henry ("Henry") and Kimberly Poston ("Poston") testified for Hollins. They stated that on June 19, 2008, Hollins and Henry were at the Wabash Valley Correctional Center in Indiana where Hollins' brother was receiving a college degree. They testified that Hollins stayed with Henry in Indiana until June 21, after which Hollins returned to St. Louis.
A federal court's power to grant a writ of habeas corpus is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), which provides:
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
The Supreme Court construed Section 2254(d) in Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000). With respect to the "contrary to" language, a majority of the Court held that a state court decision is contrary to clearly established federal law "if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme Court] on a question of law" or if the state court "decides a case differently than [the] Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts."Id. at 405. Under the "unreasonable application" prong of § 2254(d)(1), a writ may issue if "the state court identifies the correct governing legal rule from [the Supreme Court's] cases but unreasonably applies [the principle] to the facts of the particular state prisoner's case." Id. Thus, "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." Id. at 410. Although the Court failed to specifically define "objectively unreasonable," it observed that "an unreasonable application of federal law is different from an incorrect application of federal law." Id. at 410.
Respondent contends that Hollins procedurally defaulted Grounds A, B, C, E, G, H, J, and K by failing to raise these claims in his amended post-conviction motion. Hollins...
To continue reading
Request your trial