Taylor v. Steele

• Citation: 372 F.Supp.3d 800
• Decision Date: 31 March 2019
• Docket Number: No. 4:12 CV 2278 RWS,4:12 CV 2278 RWS
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
• Parties: Leonard S. TAYLOR, Petitioner, v. Troy STEELE, Respondent.

372 F.Supp.3d 800

Leonard S. TAYLOR, Petitioner,

v.Troy STEELE, Respondent.

No. 4:12 CV 2278 RWS

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.

Signed March 31, 2019

Kent E. Gipson, Law Office of Kent Gipson, LLC, Kansas City, MO, Kevin L. Schriener, Law and Schriener, LLC, St. Louis, MO, for Petitioner.

Katharine Anne Dolin, Stephen D. Hawke, Attorney General of Missouri, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RODNEY W. SIPPEL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before me upon the petition of Missouri state prisoner Leonard Taylor for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 19). After carefully considering Taylor's petition, Respondent's brief (Doc. 29), the underlying record (Doc. 29, Ex. A-JJ), and Taylor's reply (Doc. 46), I will deny the petition for the reasons set forth below.

BACKGROUND

1. Investigation & Arrest

On the evening of December 3, 2004, police investigated the St. Louis County home of Angela Rowe and her three children at the request of family members and school officials. (Doc. 29, Ex. P at 23) The investigating officers observed that the front yard "was covered with the daily paper[,]" "[the] [mailbox] was full of mail[,]" and that all the windows and doors were locked. (Id. ) With the assistance of the fire department, the investigating officers forced entry into the house through a window. (Id. )

Inside, they discovered the bodies of Rowe and her children: Alexus Conley, age ten; Acqreya Conley, age six; and Tyrese Conley, age five. (Id. , Ex. P at 24) Each had sustained gunshot wounds to the head. (Id. ) Rowe had sustained additional gunshot wounds to the torso and left arm. (Id. , Ex. Q at 28) The officers observed that the temperature inside the house was "very cold," that the television was on, and that there were no indications of burglary or previous forced entry. (Id. , Ex. P at 25) Based on information from Rowe's family that a fifth person, Taylor, lived at the house, the officers searched the residence and found no one else present. (Id. ) Taylor then became a person of interest within the investigation. (Id. , Ex. Q at 12)

The investigation quickly established a) that Taylor had an outstanding arrest warrant for a parole violation; b) that he had a wife, Debrene Williams, in California; c) that he had been driven to Lambert International Airport by his sister-in-law, Elizabeth Williams, on November 26; and d) that he had departed St. Louis that day on a flight to California under the alias "Louis Bradley." (Doc. 29, Ex. P at 21) Using cell phone records, the investigating officers determined that Taylor subsequently traveled from California to Kentucky. (Id. )

In conjunction with United States Marshals, the investigating officers set up surveillance of several residences in Madisonville, Kentucky that Taylor had been known to frequent in the past. (Doc. 29, Ex. R at 11) On the morning of December 9, 2004, members of the surveillance team observed Taylor attempting to leave one of the residences by hiding on the floorboard of a car's passenger compartment. (Id. at 12) The car was stopped and Taylor was subsequently arrested. (Id. at 15) At the time of his arrest, Taylor was traveling under the alias "Jason Lovely" and possessed pamphlets, documents, and other materials laying out procedures for creating additional aliases and fraudulent vital documents. (Id. , Ex. at 15-17)

Taylor was charged with four counts of first-degree murder and four counts of armed criminal action for the killings of Angela Rowe and her children. (Doc. 29, Ex. A at 55-58) While awaiting trial for their murders, Taylor was tried and convicted on an unrelated charge of forcible rape and sentenced as a persistent sex offender to a prison term of one hundred years without parole. See State v. Taylor , 238 S.W.3d 145 (Mo. 2007) (summarizing underlying facts and affirming conviction on direct review); see also Taylor v. State , 344 S.W.3d 217 (Mo. App. 2011) (noting length of sentence and affirming denial of post-conviction relief). After multiple continuances were granted to Taylor's defense team to ensure adequate representation, his murder trial began on February 25, 2008. (Doc. 29, Ex. P at 11)

The guilt phase of Taylor's trial for first-degree murder and armed criminal action concluded on February 28, 2008. The jury deliberated for four and half hours before finding Taylor guilty on all counts. (Doc. 29, Ex. S at 59-60) The jury reconvened the next day, February 29, 2008, for the penalty phase of the trial. (Doc. 29, Ex. T) The jury heard evidence of Taylor's prior convictions, testimony from the victim in the aforementioned forcible rape case, and testimony from family members of Angela Rowe and her children. (Id. at 7-12) On Taylor's orders, his trial team did not present any argument in mitigation and entered as their sole evidence a written stipulation of Taylor's good conduct while incarcerated. (Id. at 5-6, 12, 19) The jury deliberated for three hours before recommending the death penalty on each of the four counts of first-degree murder. (Id. at 20) On April 17, 2008, the trial court sentenced Taylor to death on each of the four murder charges and imposed consecutive sentences of life imprisonment on the armed criminal action charges. (Id. at 21-22)

3. Direct Appeal

Taylor raised eleven grounds in his direct appeal. (Doc. 29, Ex. U at 2) I briefly outline Taylor's arguments on direct appeal as follows:

In his first, second, third, and fourth grounds, Taylor argued that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding certain witness statements and other evidence as hearsay. (Doc. 29, Ex. U at 36, 62, 77, and 84)

In his fifth ground, Taylor argued that the trial court erroneously admitted forensic test results "that lacked probative value and [were] unreliable, speculative, and misleading." (Id. at 89)

In his sixth ground, Taylor argued that the trial court erroneously denied his motions to exclude those forensic test results based on the timing of their disclosure to the defense. (Id. at 99)

Seventh, Taylor argued that his speedy trial rights under Missouri state law and under the Missouri and United States Constitutions were violated by the multiple continuances granted to his defense counsel. (Id. at 107)

Eighth, Taylor argued that the trial court erroneously admitted a conversation between his brother Perry and the police, during which Perry stated that Taylor had confessed to the murders of Angela Rowe and her children, because the interrogating detective allegedly expressed an opinion as to Perry's credibility as a witness. (Id. at 118)

Ninth, Taylor argued that the trial court erroneously allowed a cause strike of a potential juror who had expressed reservations about her ability to consider capital punishment during voir dire. (Id. at 124)

Tenth, Taylor argued that the State made improper arguments during closing and that the trial court plainly erred by not intervening sua sponte . (Doc. 29, Ex. U at 129)

Finally, Taylor argued that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request for a mistrial when, upon being found guilty by the jury, he was handcuffed in view of the jury while being removed from the courtroom. (Id. at 133)

The Missouri Supreme Court¹ addressed each of Taylor's claims on the merits and affirmed the trial court's judgment on October 27, 2009. State v. Taylor , 298 S.W.3d 482 (Mo. 2009).

4. Post-Conviction Review

Taylor raised eighteen grounds in his amended motion for post-conviction relief, which incorporates his prior pro se motion for post-conviction relief. (Doc. 29, Ex. Z at 42-114, Ex. AA, Ex. BB at 5-27) Two of these grounds are related to claims Taylor raises in his habeas petition. The first is that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel when his defense team failed to adequately examine phone records used at trial and adduce allegedly favorable evidence from cross-examination of the phone records' custodians. (Doc. 29, Ex. AA at 5) The second ground that Taylor's waiver of evidence / counsel at the penalty phase of the trial was not knowing, voluntary, and unequivocal is related to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim Taylor raises for the first time in his habeas petition.

The post-conviction court conducted an evidentiary hearing on May 20, 2011, on three of Taylor's claims: two ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims and a claim that the death penalty as administered in Missouri is unconstitutional. (Doc. 29, Ex. DD, Ex. EE) The post-conviction court denied Taylor's motion for relief on September 19, 2011. (Doc. 29, Ex. CC at 38-69)

5. Appeal of Post-Conviction Review

Taylor appealed the denial of post-conviction relief to the Missouri Supreme Court. (Doc. 29, Ex. FF) He raised four grounds in his appeal. His first and second grounds disputed the post-conviction court's findings on claims raised at the evidentiary hearing. (Id. at 37-40, 43-82, 83-116) His third and fourth grounds alleged that the post-conviction court erred in refusing to grant an evidentiary hearing on additional claims. (Id. at 41-42, 117-129, 130-138) The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the post-conviction court's decision on October 30, 2012. (Doc. 29, Ex. II)

6. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

Taylor raises eight claims in his petition for habeas relief.

First, that his speedy trial rights under Missouri state law and under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution were violated by the delay of approximately thirty-one months between his invocation of his speedy trial right in July of 2005 and his trial in February 2008. (Doc. 19 at 5-13)

Second, that his constitutional right to present a complete defense under the Sixth and Fourteenth amendments was violated by the exclusion of allegedly favorable evidence as hearsay. (Id. at 13-21)

Third, that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to object to the admission of phone records and for failing to adequately investigate those...