Johnson v. Strange
| Decision Date | 21 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:17-CV-1953 PLC |
| Parties | SANTI ALI JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. BILL STRANGE and ERIC SCHMITT, Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This matter is before the Court on the pro se petition of Missouri state prisoner Santi Ali Johnson for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. [ECF No. 1] Petitioner is incarcerated at the Southeastern Correction Center, pursuant to the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis. On March 10, 2010, a jury found Petitioner guilty of one count of forcible rape, three counts of forcible sodomy, one count of second-degree robbery, and one count of kidnapping. Respondents Bill Strange and Eric Schmitt filed a response to the petition, along with exhibits consisting of copies of the materials from the underlying state court proceedings. [ECFNos. 18 & 21] For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the petition, as well as Petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing.2
The Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis held a jury trial in March 2010. On March 8, 2010, during pre-trial proceedings, Petitioner moved for the trial judge to recuse himself. Petitioner's counsel stated:
After learning that you do live close or at least in the vicinity of where the alleged events happened ... I would ask at this time that you recuse yourself as I do not believe that a reasonable person would be able to remove themselves from the facts especially when it concerns possibly their own neighborhood.
[ECF No. 18-1 at 14] The trial court denied the motion for recusal. On the morning of trial, Petitioner also moved to continue the case, withdraw counsel, and proceed with a private attorney.3 [See id. at 524-25] The trial court denied the motion.
At trial, the State presented the testimony of the victim, A.A. She testified that, on January 3, 2009, at approximately 5:15 a.m., she went outside and started her car, which was parked on the street, to allow it time to warm up before she drove to work. A.A. stated that, after she started and locked the car, Petitioner grabbed her by the shoulders, demanded her money, and forced her to the ground. Petitioner sat on A.A.'s back, removed her phone from her pocket, and penetrated her vagina with his fingers. A.A. testified that, when she struggled to escape, Petitioner "put his hands around [her] throat and squeezed the air out of [her]." [ECF No. 18-1 at 276] Petitioner then pulled A.A. into a dark "aisle" between two buildings, and put his penis in A.A.'s vagina, mouth,and anus. [Id. at 277] Petitioner threatened that "he would fuck [her] up if [she] called the police." [Id. at 278] Before walking away, Petitioner took A.A.'s cell phone, wallet, and purse, which contained a camera, calculator, and tripod. [Id. at 282, 296]
A.A. testified that she returned to her apartment and contacted her boyfriend, who immediately drove to A.A.'s apartment. A.A. and her boyfriend each testified that they were looking out the window at A.A.'s car, which was still running, when they observed Petitioner return, wearing different clothes, and try unsuccessfully to open the car door. When A.A. knocked on the window, Petitioner "looked up in the direction where the knock came from.... made the gesture like, oops, I'm sorry," and walked away. [Id. at 286-87] A.A. then called the police and reported the incident as a robbery.
A.A. testified that, after talking to police, she went to the hospital where she underwent a sexual assault examination. A.A. stated that, two days later, she met with Detective Dana Pickett at police headquarters, and brought with her two sketches she made of "the guy who raped [her]." [Id. at 289] A.A. stated that she had also provided Det. Dana Pickett with cell phone records, which reflected that her phone was used after it was taken from her. A.A. identified the cell phone records that she emailed to the police. Trial counsel objected on the grounds that "these records are hearsay," and the trial court overruled the objection. [Id. at 292-93] A.A. also helped an artist complete a composite, which A.A. described as "very accurate," and Detective Richard Noble later testified was "a drawn portrait" of Petitioner. [Id. at 290, 408]
Sexual assault examiner, Kathryn Howard, RN, testified that she examined and interviewed A.A. at the hospital on January 3, 2009. Nurse Howard stated that A.A. was anxious and tearful during the interview, and her injuries included abrasions and swelling on her hands and an abrasion or tear near her vaginal opening. Nurse Howard completed a sexual assault kit, which containedA.A.'s clothes, including her pants that were stained, and swabs from A.A.'s mouth, vagina, anus, and breasts.
Det. Pickett testified that she met with A.A. after the assault, and A.A. provided her with two sketches of Petitioner and "copies of cellular phone records from her cell phone," which reflected calls made after the phone was taken. [Id. at 368] Det. Pickett identified an email A.A. sent her with "all the phone activity on the cell phone," and the prosecutor moved to admit the phone records into evidence. [Id. at 370-71] The trial court admitted the records over trial counsel's objection that "these phone records are phone company records and we haven't heard from anyone from the phone company." [Id.]
Detectives Pickett, Noble, and Jason Steurer testified that, when they researched the numbers from A.A.'s cell phone records, Petitioner and his girlfriend Rachel Robinson became "persons of interest." [Id. at 371, 406] Det. Noble arrested Petitioner on January 8, 2009, and A.A. identified him in a live line-up the same day.
Dets. Pickett and Amy Parker-Stayton testified that, after Petitioner's arrest, they searched Ms. Robinson's car and found A.A.'s camera, wallet, and purse, as well as the calculator and tripod that were in A.A.'s purse when it was stolen. Det. Pickett testified that Ms. Robinson "actually took me to [Petitioner's] aunt's house," where they recovered A.A.'s camera. [Id. at 374]
Finally, the State presented evidence relating to the sexual assault kit. A crime lab biological screener, who conducted presumptive tests for seminal fluid, testified that the vaginal swabs, rectal swabs, and fabric from A.A.'s pants "presumptively tested positive" for seminal fluid. [Id. at 420-24] A forensic scientist analyzed those items for DNA evidence and testified that she found Petitioner's DNA on A.A.'s pants, but not on the vaginal or rectal swabs.
Petitioner testified in his own defense. According to Petitioner, he approached A.A. on the street and "[s]omehow I think we started talking about sex." [Id. at 445] A.A. told Petitioner "she always had a fetish of being with" a Black man, and they proceeded to have oral and anal sex. [Id. at 446] Petitioner stated that, when A.A. refused to have vaginal sex with him, he "kind of got upset" and "decided ... why don't I just take her purse...." [Id. at 447-48] Petitioner testified that he took "[t]he purse, the wallet, a camera ... the calculator...." [Id. at 450] Petitioner added that he "took a cell phone, too" and used it to call "several people." [Id. at 451] On cross-examination, Petitioner affirmed that he threw away the sweatshirt he was wearing and returned to A.A.'s apartment and "tried to open her car door and steal more stuff out of her car[.]" [Id. at 460]
The jury found Petitioner guilty on all counts, and Petitioner filed a motion for judgment of acquittal or a new trial, which the trial court denied. At the sentencing hearing in April 2010, the court found Petitioner was a prior and persistent offender and sentenced him to four, concurrent thirty-year sentences for the counts of forcible rape and forcible sodomy to run consecutively with two concurrent fifteen-year sentences for the robbery and kidnapping counts, for a total sentence of forty-five years' imprisonment.
Petitioner appealed the conviction to the Missouri Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in: (1) denying Petitioner's motion to continue his case, withdraw counsel, and proceed with a private attorney; (2) allowing A.A. and Det. Pickett to testify about A.A.'s phone records and entering the "unauthenticated phone records" into evidence; and (3) denying Petitioner's motion for recusal based on the judge "living within blocks from where the alleged events happened." [ECF No. 18-3 at 16-18] The Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District affirmed the conviction in an unpublished per curiam order accompanied by a memorandum sentto the parties setting forth the reasons for the order. State.v Johnson, No. ED 94787, 342 S.W.3d 366 (Mo. App. 2011), [ECF No. 18-5]
Petitioner subsequently filed a post-conviction motion under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15, which the motion court denied without an evidentiary hearing, and Petitioner appealed the decision to Missouri Court of Appeals. On appeal, Petitioner argued that the motion court erred in denying his claims that: (1) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to cross-examine Nurse Howard about the condition of A.A.'s clothes, face, and neck upon her arrival at the hospital; (2) appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to appeal the sufficiency of the evidence to support the kidnapping conviction; and (3) trial counsel was ineffective for asking A.A. questions on cross-examination that "were inconsistent with the defense strategy of arguing consent[.]" [ECF No. 18-6 at 13-15] The Court of Appeals affirmed the motion court's judgment in an unpublished per curiam order accompanied by a memorandum sent to the parties only setting forth the reasons for the order. Johnson v. State, No. ED 104034, 514 S.W.3d 646 (Mo. App. 2017), [ECF No. 18-9]
In his § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus, Petitioner raises six grounds for relief:
To continue reading
Request your trial