Muhammad v. Minor
| Decision Date | 29 September 2017 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:14 CV 1072 ACL |
| Parties | JAMAAL MUHAMMAD, Petitioner, v. DEAN MINOR, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This matter is before the Court on the Petition of Jamaal Muhammad for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Muhammad is currently incarcerated at the Moberly Correctional Center in Moberly, Missouri, pursuant to the Sentence and Judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri. (Respt's Ex. D at 104-07.)
On August 19, 2009, the State charged Muhammad as a prior and persistent offender with forcible rape and sodomy and, in the alternative, statutory rape and sodomy. (Respt's Ex. D at 17-18.) The crimes were alleged to have occurred in March 2008. On July 22, 2010, a jury found Muhammad guilty of forcible rape. Id. at 94-97. The court sentenced Muhammad to 20 years in prison. Id. at 104-07.
Muhammad raised two points on direct appeal of his convictions. (Respt's Ex. B.) In his first point, Muhammad argued that the trial court plainly erred by failing to inquire into the discontent that existed between Muhammad and defense counsel before determining whether to appoint substitute counsel. (Respt's Ex. B at p. 17.) He next argued that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to quash the venire panel after a venireperson passed out in front of the panel. Id. at 19. On November 8, 2011, the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed Muhammad's conviction. (Respt's Ex. E.)
Muhammad filed a pro se motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 29.15. (Respt's Ex. F.) After appointment of counsel, Muhammad 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 failed to locate, interview, and call as a witness Christian Clayborne; (2) trial counsel failed to locate, interview, and call as a witness Khaleed Salama and Penny Hubbard; and (3) trial counsel failed to advocate that Muhammad receive a more favorable sentencing disposition by calling witnesses on his behalf and failing to correct the court regarding Muhammad's prior criminal history. Id. On May 29, 2013, the motion court denied Muhammad's amended motion and his request for an evidentiary hearing. (Respt's Ex. H.)
In his appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief, Muhammad raised the same ineffective assistance of counsel claims that he raised in his post-conviction motion. (Respt's Ex. J.) The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the motion court. (Respt's Ex. L.)
Muhammad filed the instant Petition on June 9, 2014. (Doc. 1.) He raises 32 grounds for relief. In his first five grounds for relief, Muhammad raises the following claims previously raised in state court: (1) the trial court erred in failing to conduct an adequate inquiry into his discontent with trial counsel and in failing to appoint new counsel; (2) the trial court failed to granta mistrial after a venire person fainted; (3) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to call Christian Claybourne to testify at trial; (4) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to call Khaleed Salama and Penny Hubbard to testify at trial; and (5) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to call witnesses and in failing to correct the court about his criminal history at his sentencing.
In grounds 6 through 32, Muhammad raises for the first time ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Muhammad alleges in the following grounds of the Petition that post-conviction counsel was ineffective for not raising the ineffectiveness of trial counsel as to trial counsel's: (6) failure to file a motion for change of venue as requested by Muhammad; (7) failure to familiarize herself with his case, prepare for trial, investigate witnesses, or visit him; (8) failure to file a motion to disqualify the trial judge; (9) failure to move to waive a jury trial upon Muhammad's request; (10) failure to present evidence at the sentencing phase of his trial; (12) failure to object to and preserve for review the prosecutor's knowing use of false statements; (13) failure to object to and preserve for review the prosecutor's wrongful actions in arguing outside of the evidence during closing argument; (14) failure to object to and preserve for review that the trial court erred in finding Muhammad a persistent offender; (15) act of urging the jury to convict him of a lesser offense; (16) failure to call the treating physician as an expert witness; (17) failure to request a hearing under the Missouri Rape Shield Statutes; (18) failure to object to the admission of DNA evidence; (19) failure to object to and preserve for review the wrongful admission of DNA evidence; (20) failure to offer expert testimony regarding the DNA evidence; (21) failure to secure the state's plea offer; (22) failure to investigate and call Khalilah Green, Steve Powell, Deshell Harris, and the Secretary of the Youth Program as character witnesses; (24) overall ineffectiveness at trial resulting in the trial being nothing more than a sham and a mockery of justice; (25) failure to preserve for review the claim that the trial court erred in denying Muhammad's motion to proceed pro se; (26) failure to object to and preserve for review the claim that the prosecutorviolated Brady v. Maryland; (28) failure to impeach key prosecution witnesses with prior inconsistent statements; (29) failure to investigate and produce records showing the victim's propensity for lying; (30) failure to cross examine witnesses based on pre-trial statements; (31) failure to call impeachment witnesses; and (32) failure to adequately demonstrate the victim's prior inconsistent statements via cross-examination of the victim. (Doc. 1 at 15-24.) In two grounds of the Petition, Muhammad argued that direct appeal counsel was ineffective: (23) in failing to raise on appeal that the trial court erred in overruling his Motion for Judgment of Acquittal because there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict; and (27) in failing to raise on appeal the claim that the trial court erred in forcing counsel on Muhammad. Id. at 21-22, 23. Finally, Muhammad argued in ground eleven that post-conviction counsel was ineffective for failing to raise in the initial stage of the post-conviction proceeding that the trial court erred in releasing the probation officer's sentencing recommendation during the sentencing phase. Id. at 18.
On October 14, 2014, Respondent filed a Response to Order to Show Cause, in which he argues that the first ground for relief along with grounds 6 through 32 are procedurally defaulted, and all of Muhammad's claims fail on their merits. (Doc. 11.)
Muhammad has filed a Traverse (Doc. 27), as well as other pleadings and exhibits, in which he provides further argument in support of his grounds for relief.
The Court's summary of the facts below is taken directly from the decision of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirming Muhammad's conviction. (Respt's Ex. E at 3-4.)
In March 2008, Muhammad was an employee at the Mark Twain Community Resource Center in a program designed to assist at-risk youths. S.A., who was sixteen years old, was a participant in the program. On March 18, 2008, S.A. called Muhammad and asked him for a ridehome from her sister's house. Muhammad picked her up and then took her to Imo's for something to eat. While riding in the car, S.A. mentioned that she wanted to take a YMCA trip to Milwaukee but that she did not have the $45-50 necessary to participate. Muhammad offered to help S.A., suggesting that she could clean his house. S.A. agreed and Muhammad drove them to his house where S.A. helped Muhammad pick things up off the floor. Muhammad then turned down the lights and pulled S.A. toward him. S.A. told him to stop playing but Muhammad continued to pull her toward him and pulled off her jeans and underwear. Muhammad eventually pulled S.A. onto the bed, got on top of her, and put his penis into her vagina. After he finished, Muhammad told S.A. to go into the bathroom and wash up. When she refused, he took her into the bathroom, gave her a rag and told her that "all that crying couldn't turn him on like she should have." Muhammad then took S.A. home and gave her $40.
S.A. reported the incident to a neighbor who was involved in the community program. The neighbor drove S.A. to the police station and the hospital, where a rape kit was collected. DNA from seminal fluid on the vaginal swab contained a mixture of S.A.'s and Muhammad's DNA. Muhammad's DNA was also recovered from cuttings on S.A.'s underwear and swabs taken from S.A.'s cheek, lower perineum, thigh, and rectum.
The jury found Muhammad guilty of forcible rape and not guilty on the remaining counts.
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial