Stafford v. Vandergriff
Docket Number | 4:18-CV-1861 RLW |
Decision Date | 03 February 2022 |
Parties | STEVEN STAFFORD, Petitioner, v. DAVID VANDERGRIFF, [1] Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Steven Stafford's pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner is incarcerated at the Eastern Reception Diagnostic and Correctional Center (“ERDCC”). For the following reasons, the Court will deny the Petition.
On February 27, 2013, Petitioner Steven Stafford was convicted of murder in the first degree, two counts of armed criminal action, and the class A felony of assault in the first degree, by a jury in the Circuit Court of the City of St Louis. State v. Stafford, No. 1122-CR01324-01 (22nd Jud. Cir., State of Mo.). On April 12, 2013, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to concurrent terms of life in prison without probation or parole on the first-degree murder count and concurrent terms of life imprisonment on the other counts.
Petitioner appealed his conviction and sentence to the Missouri Court of Appeals. State v. Stafford, No. ED99866 (Mo.Ct.App. 2014). The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence on August 19, 2014. Petitioner sought reconsideration of the decision in the Court of Appeals, but his motion for reconsideration was denied on September 22 2014. Petitioner's motion for transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court was denied on November 25, 2014. State v. Stafford, No. SC94498 (Mo. S.Ct. 2014). The Missouri Court of Appeals' mandate was issued on December 2, 2014. State v. Stafford, No. ED99866 (Mo.Ct.App. 2014).
Petitioner filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15 on January 5, 2015, which the motion court denied on October 22, 2015. Stafford v. State, No. 1522-CC00050 (22nd Jud. Cir., State of Mo.). Petitioner filed an appeal on December 3, 2015, and the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed and remanded on February 21, 2017, for findings as to timeliness and the potential issue of abandonment of post-conviction counsel. Stafford v. State, No. ED103721, 510 S.W.3d 906 (Mo.Ct.App. 2017) (per curiam) (unpublished mem.). The mandate was issued on March 29, 2017.
The post-conviction motion court conducted a hearing on the issues of timeliness and abandonment of post-conviction counsel on June 9, 2017. Stafford v. State, No. 1522-CC00050-01 (22nd Jud. Cir., State of Mo.). The motion court found that the post-conviction motion was timely and Petitioner was not abandoned by post-conviction counsel, and once again denied petitioner's motion for post-conviction relief. Id. Petitioner appealed the denial to the Missouri Court of Appeals on July 6, 2017, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief on June 12, 2018. Stafford v. State, No.105768, 528 S.W.3d 926 (Mo.Ct.App. 2018) (per curiam) (unpublished mem.). The mandate was issued on July 6, 2018.
Petitioner filed his application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by placing his Petition in the prison mailing system at ERDCC on October 25, 2018.
Petitioner filed the instant Petition for habeas relief in federal court on October 29, 2018 (ECF No. 1). The Petition alleges three grounds for relief:
Respondent filed a Response in opposition to the Petition together with exhibits on April 16, 2019. (ECF No. 14.)
On August 5, 2020, Petitioner filed an Amended Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (ECF No. 43) that raises the following new grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel:
On September 9, 2020, petitioner filed a motion to stay and abey this action (ECF No. 44) pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), in order to return to state court and exhaust the claims raised in his Amended Petition. Respondent opposed the motion to stay and abey. (ECF No. 46.) The Court concluded that all of Petitioner's claims in the Amended Petition must be deemed exhausted and therefore it was not subject to stay and abeyance under Rhines. See Mem. and Order of Sept. 14, 2021 (ECF No. 50 at 4-7) ( ).
A district court may dismiss a habeas petitioner's motion without an evidentiary hearing if “(1) the movant's allegations, accepted as true, would not entitle the movant to relief, or (2) the allegations cannot be accepted as true because they are contradicted by the record, inherently incredible, or conclusions rather than statements of fact.” Buster v. United States, 447 F.3d 1130, 1132 (8th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Sanders v. United States, 341 F.3d 720, 722 (8th Cir. 2003)). Because the Court determines that Petitioner's claims do not warrant habeas relief on their face, it will deny the Petition without an evidentiary hearing.
The Missouri Court of Appeals described the facts of Petitioner's criminal case on direct appeal as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial