Jones v. Steele

• Decision Date: 29 September 2009
• Docket Number: No. 4:06CV767RWS.,4:06CV767RWS.
• Citation: 660 F.Supp.2d 1059
• Parties: Eugene Kenneth JONES, Petitioner, v. Troy STEELE, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

660 F.Supp.2d 1059

Eugene Kenneth JONES, Petitioner, v.Troy STEELE, Respondent.

No. 4:06CV767RWS.

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.

September 29, 2009.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Eugene Kenneth Jones, Jefferson City, MO, pro se.

Caroline M. Coulter, Stephen D. Hawke, Attorney General of Missouri, Jefferson City, MO, Ronald S. Ribaudo, Ribaudo Law Firm, St. Louis, MO, for Respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RODNEY W. SIPPEL, District Judge.

PetitionerEugene Kenneth Jones seeks a writ of habeas corpus.Jones initially offered nineteen grounds for vacating his convictions, but withdrew seven of those grounds.Jones alleges that his constitutional rights were violated when the state court denied his motions to suppress evidence, sustained the prosecution's objections thereby commenting on the merits of Jones' misidentification defense, empaneled a jury from a tainted venire, allowed the prosecution to violate discovery rules.Jones also alleges the prosecution violated his due process rights by calling him an "urban predator" and claims constitutional infirmities in his state post-conviction proceedings.Jones further alleges his Sixth Amendment rights were violated when he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that he was denied the right to represent himself at trial.

I referred this matter to a United States Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation on all dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).On August 25, 2009, 2009 WL 2707425, the Magistrate Judge filed his recommendation that Petitioner's habeas petition should be denied.Jones objects to the recommendation that habeas relief be denied on grounds 15, 16, 17 and 18 only and requests a de novo review of those claims.

Because Jones withdrew grounds one, two, three, six, seven, twelve and nineteen from his amended petition for habeas corpus, I will not review them.Additionally, because Jones does not object to the Magistrate Judge's recommendations regarding claims four, five, eight, nine, ten, eleven, thirteen and fourteen, I will adopt and sustain the reasoning of the Magistrate Judge's on those grounds.

I have conducted a de novo review of Jones' claims as to grounds fifteen, sixteen, seventeen and eighteen.After careful consideration, I will adopt and sustain the thorough reasoning of the Magistrate Judge as to grounds sixteen, seventeen and eighteen.But for the reasons below, I will sustain Jones' objection to the Report and Recommendation as to ground fifteen and grant Jones' petition for a writ of habeas corpus on his claim that he was unconstitutionally denied the right to represent himself at trial.

Background

PetitionerEugene K. Jones is currently serving a thirty year term of imprisonment (consisting of one twenty year and two consecutive five year terms) for having been found guilty after a jury trial of an armed robbery netting $16.In his report and recommendation, the Magistrate Judge provides a detailed description of the procedural history of Jones' jury trial and subsequent appeals as well as the facts established at Jones' trial and I adopt and incorporate that summary into my opinion here.

Before his trial Eugene K. Jones asserted his rights to represent himself under Faretta v. California,422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562(1975).I will describe in detail the facts surrounding Jones' waiver of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

On or about August 16, 2001, Jones filed a motion to proceed pro se.The trial court set a hearing on Jones' motion for September 5, 2001.Jones appeared at the September 5, 2001 hearing in person and with his appointed counsel, Michael Meyers.At that hearing, the court conducted the following examination of Jones to determine whether his request to waivecounsel was voluntary, knowing, and intelligently made:

Q.I'm going to be asking you a number of questions again in a variety of levels and some of them will be very basic and very fundamental because I don't quite frankly know you from Adam, nor you me, is that fair to say?

A.That's right

Q.I don't recall ever seeing you before in my life.Is that about right?

A.That's right.

Q.Okay.Can I ask you what your level of education is?

A.Eleventh grade.

Q.Do you have any type of physical or mental health problem?

A.Well, this side of me is numb over here due to a stab assault in the institution that I'm in.And I'm seeing a psychiatrist at the institution.

Q.You say you're seeing a psychiatrist at the workhouse?

A.Yes.

Q.Have you ever been diagnosed as having any kind of mental disease or defect?

A.No.

Q.Now you've indicated that you have some numbness down your right arm, is that correct?

A.Yes.

Q.Are you right-handed?

A.Yes, I am.

Q.Does it affect your ability to write and take notes?

A.No Q.So you're able to write and take notes with your right hand?

A.Yes.

Q.Does it slow you down in any way?

A.Yeah it slows me down.

Q.Quite a bit?

A.Well, on the average I would say, yeah.

Q.Slows you down, okay.Do you understand that if you're your own attorney, you're going to be in a courtroom and there's going to be a lot of things happening and that most people take notes during the time they're in court, do you understand that?

A.Yes, sir.

Q.Do you understand that your ability to take notes is going to be reduced because of your slowness, do you understand that?

A.Yes, sir.

Q.As we speak today are you currently under the influence of any drugs, alcohol or narcotics?

A.No, sir.

Q.Are you taking any medication for anything?

A.No, sir.

Q.Are you under a doctor's care for any reason other than seeing a psychiatrist?

A.No, sir.

Q.How many times do you see the psychiatrist?Do you see the psychiatrist regularly?

A.Once a week.

Q.Once a week.For how long?

A.It started I would say August—no, not August, I mean July the 24th.

Q.Of this year?

A.Yes.

Q.Before July 24th of 2001 had you ever seen a psychiatrist or a psychologist before in your life?

A.No, sir.

Q.How old are you?

A.I'm 41.

Q.Do you understand the charges that have been filed against you?

A.Yes, sir.

Q.Do you know what they are?

A.Yes, I do.

Q.What are they?

A.First degree robbery, armed criminal action, and unlawful use of a weapon.

Q.Do you know what the penalties for those offenses are if a jury—or if you were to be found guilty?

A.Yes.

Q.What are they?

A.Robbery, ten to life.Armed criminal action, ten to life.And I think unlawful use of a weapon is three—I don't know, I don't know exactly, but I know a $5,000 fine.

Q.Before we proceed any further, let me say to you that the asking of the questions that I've got to ask conceivably could put you in a position where the answer might tend to incriminate you, so if you find that that's the case, just indicate that that's your belief and I won't push you any further on it, all right?

A.Yes, sir.

Q.It's not my intention here to do anything that would adversely affect your defense, do you understand that?

A.Yes, sir.

Q.And in keeping with that the Court will take judicial notice of its own file together with all the documents therein sua sponte.Mr. Jones, I have to determine whether you have the capacity or ability to again as I indicated represent yourself here.And again I don't want you to incriminate yourself, but I need—one of the questions that would help me make that decision is whether or not you've ever been involved in any way in the criminal justice system before.

A. No—yes, I've been involved.

Q.Have you ever had a trial by jury?

A.No.

Q.So you've never seen—have you ever seen or witnessed a trial by jury?

A.No.

Q.Do you understand that the State of Missouri is a branch of, I mean the prosecutor's office is a branch of the government in the State of Missouri, do you understand that?

A.Yes.

Q.Do you understand that it appears to this Court that they are seeking your incarceration, do you understand that?

A.I understand that, your Honor.

Q.And you understand that you have a right to have an attorney to defend you against those charges?

A.Yes.

Q.It's my understanding that Mr. Meyers has been assigned from the office of the public defender to represent you, is that correct?

A.That's correct.

MR. MEYERS: Judge, just for the Court's information it was originally assigned to Jeff Tisoto and after he left our office it was assigned to me late July, July 27th.

Q.So a little more than a month ago?

A.Yes.

Q.Have you had the opportunity talk [sic] with Mr. Meyers about your case yet since he's only been on it for a short time?

A.Yes, I talked to him.

Q.Do you have any complaints about Mr. Meyers?

A.I don't know him.

Q.When you talked with him did ask him questions?

A.No, not really.

Q.Is there anything at all about your request to represent yourself that has anything to do with Mr. Meyers or your belief in his ability to represent you?

A.Yeah.

Q.All right.Want to explain that?

A.I just feel that even though Mr. Meyers have a concern for me, he just don't have the concern that I'm looking for.

Q.Did you express that to him?

A.No.

Q.Is that the reason you want to represent yourself?

A.Well, not more so that being the reason, you know, my past experience is also I haven't been so successful with state appointed attorneys and I just feel it's in my best interests, you know, to represent myself concerning the situation that I'm facing.

Q.So is this anything to do with what Mr. Meyers has said or done that made you think that he doesn't care about you?

A.No, I know he do.I'm just saying I just care about myself a hell of a lot— excuse my French—so I'm going to put in my whole effort to trying to, you know, seek out what's best for me.

Q.Is there anything that Mr. Meyers has said or done or not said or not done that would make you think that he would do anything less than the best...