Richardson v. Payne

• Decision Date: 03 September 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 4:19-cv-2364-SNLJ
• Parties: JEFFERY S. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff, v. STANLEY PAYNE, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

JEFFERY S. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff, v. STANLEY PAYNE, Defendant.

Case No. 4:19-cv-2364-SNLJ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

September 3, 2020

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This case is a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner Jeffery S. Richardson is an inmate at the Eastern Reception Diagnostic Correctional Center in Bonne Terre, Missouri. In 2013, Richardson was convicted by a jury on one count of first-degree assault, in violation of Section 565.050 RSMo, and one count of armed criminal action, in violation of Section 571.015 RSMo. The trial court sentenced Richardson to 20 years' imprisonment on both counts, to run concurrently. The conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal (Resp. Ex. C), Richardson's Rule 29.15 motion was denied by the trial court (Resp. Ex. J, pp. 62-70), and the Rule 29.15 denial was affirmed on appeal (Resp. Ex. H).

In his petition before this Court, Richardson raises four grounds for relief: 1) ineffective assistance of counsel—failing to investigate and present evidence regarding the side effects of a drug known as "Effexor"; 2) trial error in the refusal to instruct the jury on self-defense; 3) ineffective assistance of counsel—failing to object to prosecutorial misconduct; and 4) ineffective assistance of counsel—failing to rehabilitate the testimony of Officer Stevens.

This Court will deny the petition. Richardson raised the first three grounds for relief in state court, which were denied on the merits. On those claims, this Court will defer to the decision of the Missouri Court of Appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). On the fourth ground for relief, it was procedurally defaulted—having not been raised either to the trial court or the Missouri Court of Appeals—and any blame placed on counsel for failing to raise it does not excuse the default because the claim, even if it were made, has no merit.

I. STATEMENT OF EXHIBITS

In support of this memorandum, this Court cites the following exhibits as set out in the response to show cause, ECF #12.

1. Respondent's Exhibit A is Richardson's brief on direct appeal.

2. Respondent's Exhibit C is a copy of the Missouri Court of Appeals' decision affirming the conviction and sentence.

3. Respondent's Exhibit J is a copy of the legal file from Richardson's state post-conviction appeal.

4. Respondent's Exhibit F is Richardson's brief on post-conviction appeal.

5. Respondent's Exhibit G is a copy of the State's brief on post-conviction appeal.

6. Respondent's Exhibit H is a copy of the Missouri Court of Appeals' decision affirming the denial of post-conviction relief.

II. BACKGROUND

"In a proceeding instituted by an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court, a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct. The applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence." 28 U.S.C. 2254(e). During Richardson's direct appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals summarized the relevant facts and procedural background as follows:

On September 12, 2011, Appellant stopped at a convenience store at approximately 9:00 p.m. while on his way home. Appellant parked his mother's GMC Yukon in front of the store, entered the store and purchased a six-pack of beer.

While Appellant was inside, Marvin Huntley and his cousin, Ricky Bolden, arrived at the same store in Bolden's car. Bolden parked two spaces to the left of Appellant's vehicle. Bolden went into the store while Huntley remained in the passenger seat.

Huntley testified Appellant came out of the store, stared at him briefly, and then approached him. Huntley stated Appellant introduced himself and asked Huntley for marijuana. When Huntley responded that he did not "smoke," Appellant said something to him about how "[he] just ran from the police" and asked him a strange question. Huntley testified he did not know how to respond so he asked Appellant for a lighter. Appellant, however, testified he was walking to his car after leaving the store when Huntley called him over and asked for a lighter.

Appellant then walked back to the Yukon, put his beer inside and retrieved his lighter for Huntley. Appellant handed the lighter to Huntley, who lit his cigarette and returned the lighter to Appellant. Appellant returned to his vehicle. Appellant testified he sat in his vehicle for a minute because he was going to light a cigarette.

At this time, Bolden came back to the car and asked Huntley for some change to buy Huntley cigarettes. Huntley told Bolden about his interaction with Appellant and pointed Appellant out to Bolden. Bolden told Huntley to "forget that white man" and walked back into the store.

Appellant testified he saw Huntley turn toward him and heard Huntley say something that he did not understand. Appellant thought Huntley had asked for help changing a tire or "something." Appellant testified he got out of his vehicle and walked over to Bolden's car while looking at the tires. At the same time, Huntley got out of the car to tell Bolden to "come on" so they could leave.

Appellant testified he followed Huntley around the car, looking at the tires of Bolden's car, because he thought Huntley was leading him around the front of the car. Appellant testified when he saw none of the tires were flat, he became confused about where Huntley was going. Appellant asked Huntley what Huntley had said to him. Huntley told Appellant he did not say anything, or "no bull crap," told Appellant to leave him alone and turned away from Appellant.

Huntley testified Appellant kept approaching him so he turned around to face Appellant and backed away from Appellant. Appellant kept asking Huntley what he had said. Huntley testified it was an awkward situation, he was uncomfortable, and he felt that Appellant would not leave him alone. Huntley testified Appellant kept coming towards him and Huntley thought "something" was going to happen so he defended himself by slapping Appellant.

Appellant testified Huntley hit him with his left hand and Appellant saw a bright flash and Huntley's right hand go down. Appellant testified he thought Huntley was going for a weapon and he "went into survival mode" because he felt his life was in danger. Appellant testified he panicked because he did not know what Bolden, who was inside the store, was going to do and "[t]his guy went crazy on me for no reason, [I was] trying to help him out." Appellant immediately drew his gun from his pocket and fired it. Appellant testified that after the first shot, Huntley raised his arms up and it seemed like Huntley started to lunge at him again so he fired a second shot.

Appellant testified he actually never saw Huntley with a weapon or a gun. Rather, Appellant saw a bright light, and Huntley's hand go down and Appellant "thought he was going for a weapon." Appellant testified he believed Huntley was armed "[b]ecause why would somebody attack you right out in front of the store unless -- I just panicked, you know. I figured I was in big trouble and I thought he was just going to cause me real damage."

The entire incident was recorded on the convenience store's security camera and was admitted at trial. The video shows that in the seconds after Huntley struck Appellant and Appellant grabbed his gun, Huntley took several steps backward before coming to a stop with his arms to his sides while Appellant took several steps toward Huntley with his gun pointed at Huntley. The video shows Appellant firing one shot while Huntley was standing and the second shot as Huntley fell backward to the ground and as Appellant began to turn and walk away.

After shooting Huntley, Appellant immediately got into the Yukon and drove to his mother's home, where he parked the vehicle behind a pickup truck in the driveway. Appellant changed his pants and shoes. Officer John Stevens, who received a broadcast about the shooting and a description of the Yukon, spotted the Yukon parked in the driveway of Appellant's mother's house and made contact with Appellant. When Stevens inquired about the last person to drive the vehicle, Appellant stated his friend "Chris" was the last person to drive the car but could not provide any additional information about Chris. Another officer responded to the home and recognized Appellant from the video surveillance he had reviewed earlier at the store. The officer arrested Appellant and found Appellant's shorts, a wallet with a debit card matching the card used at the convenience store, and a six-pack of beer in the bed of the pickup truck.

When police arrived at the convenience store, Huntley was unresponsive. Huntley spent several weeks in the hospital recovering from his injuries and underwent surgery for the injuries to his abdomen and hip. Huntley, Bolden and the store clerk positively identified Appellant in a photo lineup as the shooter.

The State charged Appellant with first-degree assault and armed criminal action. The jury found Appellant guilty on both charges. The trial court sentenced Appellant to two concurrent terms of twenty years of imprisonment. This appeal follows.

On appeal, Appellant argues the trial court erred in refusing to submit a self-defense instruction proffered by the defense because there was substantial evidence supporting its submission.

(Resp. Ex. C, pp. 2-5).

III. ANALYSIS

A. Trial Counsel was not Ineffective for Failing to Investigate Certain Medical Evidence Supporting an Alleged Mental Health Defense. This Court Defers to the Missouri Court of Appeals' Decision on This Issue (Responds to the First Ground for Relief).

In his first ground for relief, Richardson argues his "[c]ounsel did not investigate medication evidence" that would have supported a defense that Richardson suffered "severe withdrawal effects" from a drug known as "Effexor," which allegedly caused him to suffer "paranoid and [a] distorted perception" when...