Pollard-El v. Payne, Case No. 4:18-CV-590 SRW
| Decision Date | 25 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:18-CV-590 SRW |
| Parties | BYRON POLLARD-EL, JR., Petitioner, v. STANLEY PAYNE, Respondent(s). |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This matter is before the Court on the Amended Petition of Byron Pollard-El, Jr. for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The State has filed a response and Petitioner replied. Both parties have consented to the exercise of plenary authority by a United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). For the reasons set forth below, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.
Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the Eastern Reception Diagnostic and Correctional Center in Bonne Terre, Missouri. Petitioner was charged with one count of first-degree murder in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.020 (Count I); two counts of armed criminal action in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 571.015 (Counts II and IV); one count of first-degree assault in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.050 (Count III); one count of attempted distribution of a controlled substance in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 195.211 (Count V); and possession of less than 35 grams of marijuana in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 195.202 (Count VI). (ECF No. 26-4 at 18-26, 47-48). Petitioner, through counsel, filed a motion to suppress his recorded confession to police that he shot and killed the victim, which was denied by the State circuit court. (ECF No. 26-4 at 30-35, 45).
On March 7, 2014, in exchange for the State amending the first-degree murder charge to second-degree murder, Petitioner pled guilty to second-degree murder and the remaining charges. (ECF No. 26-11 at 48-79). On March 10, 2014, new counsel entered an appearance to represent Petitioner, and orally moved to withdraw the guilty plea pursuant to Missouri Court Rule 29.07(d). (ECF Nos. 26-4 at 49, 26-11 at 79-90). The circuit court denied Petitioner's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. (ECF No. 26-1 at 90). Subsequently, Petitioner was sentenced to terms of life imprisonment for Counts I, II, and IV, and terms of fifteen, seven, and one years for Counts III, V, and VI, respectively. All counts were to run concurrently, except the fifteen-year sentence on Count III which was to run consecutively. (ECF No. 26-4 at 52-55).
After receiving leave, Petitioner filed a late notice of appeal to the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District, Case No. ED101546, asserting the circuit court erred in denying his Rule 29.07 motion to withdraw his guilty plea. (ECF Nos. 26-1 at 1-25, 26-4 at 56-58, 64-70). The state appellate court affirmed Petitioner's conviction and sentence on September 8, 2015, and a mandate was issued on October 2, 2015. (ECF No. 26-3 at 1-7). See State v. Pollard, 469 S.W.3d 506 (Mo. App. 2015).
On April 17, 2014, prior to the appeal in ED101546, Petitioner filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence pursuant to Rule 24.035. (ECF No. 26-9 at 34-52). The Motion was held in abeyance pending the appellate court's decision. (ECF No. 26-12 at 3). On December 29, 2015, Petitioner, represented by appointed counsel, filed an Amended Motion and a Request for an Evidentiary Hearing. (ECF No. 26-9 at 59-81). In the Amended Motion, Petitioner argued the trial court erred when it denied him the opportunity to withdraw his guiltyplea because his counsel was ineffective by (1) misleading him about the definition of a life sentence and (2) pressuring him into pleading guilty despite his insistence on going to trial. Id. The circuit court granted in part Petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing and held the hearing on June 10, 2016. (ECF No. 26-9 at 84-85). On September 8, 2016, the circuit court denied Petitioner's request for post-conviction relief. (ECF No. 26-9 at 86-95).
On October 17, 2016, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal with the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District. (ECF No. 26-9 at 98-102). Petitioner raised one sole issue on appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief, arguing the circuit court erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion because "the record clearly demonstrated that his counsel misled him regarding the meaning of a 'life' sentence, in that counsel stated a 'life' sentence is considered to be the same as a 30-year sentence and 'the only difference is you're on lifetime parole' on a life sentence." (ECF No. 26-6 at 30). On January 16, 2018, the appellate court affirmed the circuit court's denial of post-conviction relief holding that "[n]othing in the record indicates [Petitioner's] mistaken belief that there is no difference between a life sentence and a 30-year sentence was reasonable." (ECF No. 26-10 at 1-8). See Pollard v. State, 537 S.W.3d 403 (Mo. App. 2018). The mandate was issued on February 9, 2018.
On April 12, 2018, Petitioner, proceeding as a self-represented litigant, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1). On October 9, 2018, after retaining counsel and seeking leave from this Court, Petitioner filed an Amended Petition. (ECF No. 36). The Amended Petition raises five grounds for relief: (1) Petitioner's rights to due process and effective assistance of counsel were violated when plea counsel misled him regarding the meaning of a life sentence resulting in his guilty plea not being knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made; (2) Petitioner was denied due process and effectiveassistance of counsel when plea counsel failed to file a motion to suppress historical cell phone records that were seized without a warrant; (3) Petitioner was denied due process and effective assistance of counsel when plea counsel failed to argue in a motion to suppress that Petitioner's confession was involuntary due to the length and conditions of his detention; (4) Petitioner was denied due process and effective assistance of counsel when plea counsel failed to argue in a motion to suppress that his waiver of his Miranda rights was not voluntary because the detectives shifted their questioning and continued questioning after he requested an attorney; and (5) Petitioner was denied due process and effective assistance of counsel when trial counsel improperly advised him not to testify at the suppression hearing. Id.
On January 18, 2019, Respondent filed a Response to Order to Show Cause. (ECF No. 26). Respondent argues Petitioner's first claim was denied on the merits in state court and the denial is entitled to deference. As to the remaining claims, Petitioner asserts they are procedurally defaulted and meritless. Id. On June 19, 2019, Petitioner filed a Reply. (ECF No. 33).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a district court "shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). "[I]n a § 2254 habeas corpus proceeding, a federal court's review of alleged due process violations stemming from a state court conviction is narrow." Anderson v. Goeke, 44 F.3d 675, 679 (8th Cir. 1995).
Federal courts may not grant habeas relief on a claim that has been decided on the merits in State court unless that adjudication:
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)-(2). "A state court's decision is contrary to . . . clearly established law if it applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [Supreme Court] cases or if it confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a [Supreme Court] decision . . . and nevertheless arrives at a [different] result." Cagle v. Norris, 474 F.3d 1090, 1095 (8th Cir. 2007) (quoting Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12, 15-16 (2003)). A state court "unreasonably applies" federal law when it "identifies the correct governing legal rule from Court's cases but unreasonably applies it to the facts of the particular state prisoner's case," or "unreasonably extends a legal principle from [the Supreme Court's] precedent to a new context where it should not apply or unreasonably refuses to extend that principle to a new context where it should apply." Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 407 (2000). A state court decision may be considered an unreasonable determination "only if it is shown that the state court's presumptively correct factual findings do not enjoy support in the record." Ryan v. Clarke, 387 F.3d 785, 790-791 (8th Cir. 2004) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1)).
A state court's factual findings are presumed to be correct. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Wood v. Allen, 558 U.S. 290, 293 (2010). Review under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits. Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 180-81 (2011). Clear and convincing evidence that state court factual findings lack evidentiary support is required to grant habeas relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Wood, 558 U.S. at 293.
In his first ground for relief, Petitioner asserts his plea counsel was ineffective for misleading him about the meaning of a life sentence and, as a result, Petitioner's guilty plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary. (ECF No. 36 at 14-17). Specifically, Petitioner argues his plea counsel incorrectly advised him that he would be released from his life sentence after thirty years. Respondent asserts that this claim lacks merit and should be denied. The Court agrees.
Petitioner unsuccessfully...
To continue reading
Request your trial