Tramble v. Hurley

• Decision Date: 06 February 2017
• Docket Number: No. 4:14-cv-00547-RWS-NCC,4:14-cv-00547-RWS-NCC
• Parties: EDWARD TRAMBLE, Petitioner, v. JAMES HURLEY, Respondent
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

EDWARD TRAMBLE, Petitioner, v. JAMES HURLEY, Respondent

No. 4:14-cv-00547-RWS-NCC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

February 6, 2017

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the court on Petitioner's Amended Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody. (Doc. No. 9). This matter was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). (Doc. No. 5). After reviewing the case, the court has determined that Petitioner is not entitled to relief. As a result, the court will recommend that the Petition be dismissed.

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner was charged as follows: The class C felony of burglary in the second degree, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 569.170, in that on or about March 11, 2010, Petitioner knowingly entered a building owned by New Beginnings Full Gospel Ministries, for the purpose of committing stealing therein (Count 1); the class A misdemeanor of stealing, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 570.030, in that on or about March 11, 2010, Petitioner appropriated postage stamps which were in the possession of New Beginnings Full Gospel Ministries and he appropriated such property without the consent of New Beginnings Full Gospel Ministries (Count 2); and the class A misdemeanor of possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to use, in that on or about March 11, 2010, Petitioner possessed a metal pipe, burnt at both ends and containing wire mesh, which was drug paraphernalia, knowing of its presence and nature with intent to use it to inhale a controlled substance (Count 3). Petitioner was charged as a prior and persistent offender. (Resp. Ex. B at 8-9).

As explained by the Missouri appellate court,¹ the testimony at Petitioner's trial was as follows: Officers Morrell and Widmer responded to a dispatch call that an alarm had sounded at the New Beginnings Full Gospel Ministries. (Resp. Ex. E at 2). They entered the building upon finding the door had been broken and found Petitioner "in the office attempting to conceal himself by standing flat against the wall behind the door." (Id.). When questioned by Officer Widmer, Petitioner "refused to identify himself, stated that he was just trying to get out of the rain, and that the door broke when he pulled on it." (Id.). After he was notified of the event and arrived on the scene, Pastor Rainey told officers that he did not know Petitioner; that he had not given Petitioner permission to enter the church; that the doors had been locked when he left a few hours earlier; and that the condition of his office was not as it had been when he left. (Id. at 3). Pastor Rainey also noted that his file cabinet drawers had been pulled open and its contentsplaced on the desk chair, and that the CD player had been moved from "its customary location in the church's sound room" to his office. (Id.).

After placing Petitioner under arrest, "[u]pon conducting a search of [Petitioner's] person, the officers discovered a metal pipe burnt at both ends with steel wool stuffed inside of it, a Missouri identification card, and several United States postage stamps. The pipe was identified by Officer Morrell as a device commonly used to smoke crack cocaine and the postage stamps were identified by [Pastor] Rainey as stamps that he had purchased for the church and had been in the office file cabinet." (Id.).

Petitioner was convicted by a jury, as charged, and sentenced to twelve years of imprisonment for the burglary and a concurrent one-year term for each of the other two convictions. (Resp. Ex. B at 38-40). Petitioner filed a direct appeal, and his convictions and sentences were affirmed by the Missouri appellate court. State v. Tramble, 359 S.W.3d 542 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012).

Petitioner then filed a post-conviction relief motion pursuant to Rule 29.l5. (Resp. Ex. G at 4-9). Counsel was appointed and filed an amended Rule 29.15 motion. (Id. at 10-11, 16-32). The motion court denied Petitioner's post-conviction relief. (Id. at 35-41). Petitioner appealed the motion court's decision to the Missouri appellate court. (Resp. Ex. H). On September 24, 2013, the Missouri appellate court affirmed the motion court's denial of post-conviction relief. Tramble v. State, 414 S.W.3d 571 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013).

On March 21, 2014, Petitioner filed a § 2254 Petition in this court. (Doc. No. 1). On May 13, 2014, pursuant to a motion filed by Respondent, the court ordered Petitioner to file an Amended Petition sufficiently alleging the grounds upon which he was seeking habeas relief. (Doc. No. 8). The court also directed Petitioner to show cause for excusing the proceduraldefault of any claims which he intended to raise in his amended § 2254 petition. On June 11, 2014, Petitioner filed an amended § 2254 petition, in which he raises the following claims:

(1) Petitioner's right to due process was violated because the evidence was insufficient to convict him of second degree robbery;

(2) Petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel failed to protect Petitioner's right to impeach Pastor Rainey's credibility with his robbery convictions, because counsel failed to request that the jury be instructed to consider Pastor Rainey's convictions when considering his credibility, and because counsel permitted the State to question Pastor Rainey regarding his convictions; and

(3) The motion court "erred in concluding that trial counsel's decisions as to Pastor Rainey's prior convictions were 'not reasonable' and therefore, the claim that failing to request instruction under MAI-CR310.14 was ineffective assistance of counsel lacked merit."

(Doc. No. 9-1 at 5, 7, 17).²

II. PROCEDURAL DEFAULT and TIMLINESS STANDARD

To avoid defaulting on a claim, a petitioner seeking habeas review must have fairly presented the substance of the claim to the state courts, thereby affording the state courts a fair opportunity to apply controlling legal principles to the facts bearing on the claim. Wemark v. Iowa, 322 F.3d 1018, 1020-21 (8th Cir. 2003) (quotation marks omitted). A claim has been fairly presented when a petitioner has properly raised the same factual grounds and legal theories in the state courts that he is attempting to raise in his federal petition. Id. at 1021. Claims that have not been fairly presented to the state courts are procedurally defaulted. Id. at 1022 (quoting Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 161-62 (1996)). Claims that have been procedurally defaulted may not give rise to federal habeas relief unless the petitioner can demonstrate cause and prejudice for the default. Id. "[T]he existence of cause for a procedural default must ordinarilyturn on whether the prisoner can show that some objective factor external to the defense impeded counsel's efforts to comply with the State's procedural rule." Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488 (1986).

Additionally, § 2244(d)(1) establishes a 1-year limitation period on petitions filed pursuant to § 2254.

The court finds that Petitioner's amended petition was timely filed in this court. Although he did not raise Ground 3 as a separate issue on appeal, given that it is nearly identical to the issue Petitioner raises in Ground 2, in the interest of justice, the court finds that Petitioner has not procedurally defaulted the issues raised before this court.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

"In the habeas setting, a federal court is bound by the AEDPA³ to exercise only limited and deferential review of underlying state court decisions." Lomholt v. Iowa, 327 F.3d at 751. Under this standard, a federal court may not grant relief to a state prisoner unless the state court's adjudication of a claim "resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States," or "was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

A state court decision is contrary to clearly established Supreme Court precedent if "the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the] Court on a question of law or . . . decides a case differently than [the] Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts." Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 413 (2000). A state court decision is an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law if it "correctly identifies the governing legal rule but applies it unreasonably to the facts of a particular prisoner's case." Id. at 407-08. Finally, astate court decision involves an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings only if it is shown that the state court's presumptively correct factual findings do not enjoy support in the record. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Ryan v. Clarke, 387 F.3d 785, 790 (8th Cir. 2004).

IV. DISCUSSION

Ground 1:

In Ground 1, Petitioner argues that his right to due process was violated because the evidence was insufficient to convict him of second degree robbery. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 569.170(1) provides: "A person commits the offense of burglary in the second degree when he or she knowingly enters unlawfully or knowingly remains unlawfully in a building or inhabitable structure for the purpose of committing a crime therein." (emphasis added).

In support of Ground 1, Petitioner argues that the evidence at trial did not establish the requisite intent to prove a person guilty of second degree robbery. He also argues that the "church was not a building one would think would contain items of value"; he told officers he "just came in to get out of the rain"; and because he could not have known there would be items of value in the church, he could not have had the requisite intent. (Doc. No. 9-1 at 6-7). Additionally, Petitioner argues that the Missouri appellate court's determination, in regard to the issue of Ground 1, was an "unreasonable...