Sapien v. Bowersox
Decision Date | 24 October 2016 |
Docket Number | Case No. 16-0851-CV-W-ODS-P |
Parties | ANDREW SAPIEN, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL BOWERSOX, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
Petitioner, a convicted state prisoner currently confined at the South Central Correctional Center in Licking, Missouri has filed pro se this federal petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his 2008 convictions and sentences for two counts of first-degree statutory sodomy, which were entered in the Circuit Court of Platte County, Missouri. Petitioner's convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. Doc. 10-5; State v. Sapien, 337 S.W.3d 72 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011). Petitioner's motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 29.15 was denied after an evidentiary hearing (Doc. 10-6, pp. 78-111) and that denial was affirmed on appeal therefrom (Doc. 10-10).
In affirming Petitioner's convictions and sentences, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, set forth the following facts:
Doc. 10-5, pp. 2-4; Sapien, 337 S.W.3d at 74-75.
Before the state court findings may be set aside, a federal court must conclude that the state court's findings of fact lack even fair support in the record. Marshall v. Lonberger, 459U.S. 422, 432 (1983). Credibility determinations are left for the state court to decide. Graham v. Solem, 728 F.2d 1533, 1540 (8th Cir. en banc), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 842 (1984). It is Petitioner's burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the state court findings are erroneous. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1).1 Because the state court's findings of fact have fair support in the record and because Petitioner has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the state court findings are erroneous, the Court defers to and adopts those factual conclusions.
Petitioner raises the following grounds for relief: (1) the trial court erred in allowing M.T. to testify that she had been raped previously by Petitioner; (2) the trial court erred in denying Petitioner's motion to dismiss the first amended information, because the amended charges were filed against Petitioner for refusing the plea offer; (3) the prosecution presented a plea offer that could not legally be accepted and filed enhanced charges after Petitioner refused; and (4) trial counsel was ineffective for entering Petitioner's juvenile record into evidence, which supported the State's position for a harsh sentence. Doc. 1, pp. 5-18. Respondent argues that Ground 1 is not cognizable and, alternatively, is without merit and that Grounds 2-4 are without merit. Doc. 10.
In Ground 1, Petitioner argues that the trial court erred in allowing M.T. to testify that she had been raped previously by Petitioner. Doc. 1, pp. 5, 16. "Questions regarding admissibility of evidence are matters of state law, and they are reviewed in federal habeas inquiries only to determine whether an alleged error infringes upon a specific constitutional protection or is soprejudicial as to be a denial of due process." Rousan v. Roper, 436 F.3d 951, 958 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 835 (2006) (quoting Logan v. Lockhart, 994 F.2d 1324, 1330 (8th Cir.1993)). Petitioner must show that "the alleged improprieties were so egregious that they fatally infected the proceedings and rendered his entire trial fundamentally unfair." Id.
The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, denied Ground 1 as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial