Williams v. Armontrout

• Decision Date: 09 February 1988
• Docket Number: No. 86-0883-CV-W-9.,86-0883-CV-W-9.
• Citation: 679 F. Supp. 916
• Parties: Doyle J. WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. Bill ARMONTROUT, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri

679 F. Supp. 916

Doyle J. WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. Bill ARMONTROUT, Respondent.

No. 86-0883-CV-W-9.

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, W.D.

February 9, 1988.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

BARTLETT, District Judge.

Petitioner Doyle J. Williams ("Williams") was convicted of the capital murder of Kerry Brummett and sentenced to death in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, on November 13, 1981.¹ On July 21, 1986, Williams filed pro se a "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody." Petitioner seeks a new trial or a discharge from his conviction. Petitioner moved for appointment of an attorney and a stay of execution. On August 4, 1986, Charles German was appointed to represent Williams. A stay of execution was entered on September 12, 1986.

On September 17, 1986, the State responded to the order to show cause. Petitioner through his attorney filed his traverse on November 24, 1986.

In addition to the claims presented by Williams in his petition and developed in the traverse prepared by counsel, Williams raised the following claims in his pro se petition filed on July 21, 1986:

A Movant's conviction was obtained in violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution when:

. . . . .

4. The trial Court failed and refused to instruct the jury as to consideration/weight the jury should give a drug addict's testimony, to-wit: that the jury should take the testimony of an admitted drug addict's testimony sic with caution and care.

. . . . .

6. The trial Court failed and refused to advise Movant that Movant had a Constitutional right to proceed Pro Se.

7. The Trial Court failed and refused to advise Movant that Movant had the right to testify and that if Movant decided to testify, that the jury could/should be instructed that Movant's past criminal convictions could not be considered as evidence of Movant's guilt in the crime charged.

8. The trial Court failed and refused to construe Missouri statute RSMo. 565.001 strickly sic against the State and liberally in favor of the Movant, in that when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State, said statute has not been violated.

9. The trial Court failed and refused to discharge Movant due to the fact that said Court lacked jurisdiction of Movant due to the State transporting illegally from the State of Missouri into the State of Illinois and then back to the State of Missouri before the trial but after the State of Missouri had taken temporary custody from the Federal Government under the Agreement on Interstate Detainers.

. . . . .

On September 17, 1986, the State responded to these claims in its response to the order to show cause. However Williams did not provide any legal or factual support of the claims in his traverse or in briefs filed on November 24, 1986, January 9, 1987, and June 22, 1987. Therefore, I assume that petitioner has abandoned these claims.

On February 19, 1987, oral argument was held on Williams' petition; no evidence was received. On June 22, 1987, petitioner filed supplemental suggestions in response to arguments made by the State at the February 19, 1987, hearing. Additional authorities were provided by Williams and his counsel by letters dated September 23, 1987, November 12, 1987, December 1, 1987, December 2, 1987, December 17, 1987, and January 13, 1988.

I. BACKGROUND

In April 1980, Williams and John Morgan burglarized the medical offices of Dr. A.H. Domann in Auxvasse, Missouri, taking, among other things, blank prescription pads. Thereafter, Williams and Morgan went to Morgan's trailer home. In the presence of Brummett, Williams and Morgan discussed ways to use the prescription pads. Brummett saw the prescription pads with Dr. Domann's name on them. Later the same day, Williams was arrested while attempting to pass forged prescriptions in a Columbia drug store. Faced with the charge of attempting to obtain a controlled substance by fraud, Williams told Morgan that he could avoid conviction if Dr. Domann did not testify that he had not signed the prescriptions.

On October 7, 1980, Williams told Morgan that he had killed Domann. Williams suggested to Morgan that Brummett should be killed for testifying for the State against Morgan and to prevent him testifying against Williams about the burglary of Domann's office. Pursuant to a plan developed by Morgan, Betty Coleman (one of Williams' girlfriends) and Williams, Coleman arranged a date with Brummett and drove him to a deserted area in Callaway County adjacent to the Missouri River. Williams and Morgan emerged from concealment and dragged Brummett from the automobile. Williams beat Brummett on the head with the barrel of his .357 Magnum. Using a pair of handcuffs Williams had borrowed from an Auxvasse police officer, Williams and Morgan bound Brummett's hands behind his back and forced him into the trunk of the automobile Coleman had driven. Williams and Morgan took Brummett to another location near the Missouri River. After Brummett was removed from the trunk, Williams resumed beating him. Brummett ran toward the river while being pursued by Williams. Still handcuffed, Brummett ran into the river. When Brummett surfaced the second time, Williams ordered Morgan to shoot him. Morgan fired over Brummett's head. Williams waded into the river to retrieve the handcuffs but Brummett had disappeared. Several days later, his body was found on a sandbar. The cause of Brummett's death was drowning. His scalp had been lacerated by a blunt instrument.

Brummett's gold chain, traces of blood, hairs from Brummett's head and a pack of Brummett's cigarettes were found in the car used to transport Brummett. Brummett's glasses and his plastic name tag were found at the place where Brummett was placed in the trunk.

On September 17, 1981, a jury found Williams guilty of capital murder and later that day recommended the death penalty. The aggravating circumstance designated by the jury was that Brummett was murdered for the purpose of preventing his testimony in a judicial proceeding. ž 565.012.2(12) R.S.Mo. (repealed by L.1983, p. 923, S.B. No. 276, ž 1, 1984).

II. DISCUSSION

A. Williams was not denied due process and equal protection of the law when the trial court refused to instruct on first degree murder (felony murder)

Williams argues that he was denied due process and equal protection because the trial judge refused to instruct on felony murder and the Missouri Supreme Court applied different law to Williams' case than to other similar cases.

At trial, the jury was instructed on capital murder (the offense charged) and on the lesser included offenses of second degree murder and manslaughter. Respondent's Exhibit A-3 at 93-95. Williams' counsel and the State offered an instruction on first degree murder, i.e., killing committed while perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate kidnapping. R.S.Mo. ž 565.003 (repealed by L.1983, p. 922, S.B. No. 276, ž 1). Respondent's Exhibit A-2 at 610-13; Respondent's Exhibit A-3 at 112. The trial judge refused to give a first degree murder instruction because it was not supported by the evidence. Respondent's Exhibit A-2 at 611-16, 754-56.

The Court did that because the Court does not feel that there is evidence sufficient to submit on the felony murder theory. The reasoning behind that is that in this case the only evidence that I remember in this case is that the defendant, together with one John Morgan, set about with an intent and design to cause the death of the deceased in this case, Kerry Brummett.

The plan was, that is the evidence indicates, if the jury believes it, that they set about to have the aid and assistance of a female, Betty Coleman. And with the eventual intent being that the deceased would be killed and his body thrown in the Missouri River.

The Court feels that the kidnapping that took place later on in the evening was merely one link in the chain of events that had been planned by the defendant and John Morgan in committing the offense of murder.

Now, what I'm saying, I'm talking about what the evidence shows. I'm not saying that's my belief. That's what the evidence in the case would tend to show if believed by the jury.

Now, the Court feels that there is no evidence to the contrary. And the Court feels that there is no independent collateral felony to draw upon to create the crime of felony murder. And that if any, the kidnapping, would just be one of the circumstances planned by the two conspirators to cause the death of Kerry Brummett.

Respondent's Exhibit A-2 at 613-14.

Later, in denying Williams' motion for judgment of acquittal or for a new trial, the trial judge amplified his reason for refusing to give the first degree murder instruction:

As I mentioned before, I have reviewed the motion before. And I have given further thought to the allegations of err number 1 regarding the court failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of capital murder.

And after further consideration the court came to the same conclusion that I arrived at previously in the case. And that is that there may have been a kidnapping, but the court feels that, again, that was just, as I said before, a link in the chain of the murder in this case.

And if there was a kidnapping, the murder was not committed in the course of the commission of the crime of kidnapping. But, on the other hand, the crime of kidnapping was committed in the course of committing the crime of murder. Therefore, the court feels rather strongly that this is not a proper case of felony murder in the State of Missouri or common law or under the law of any state that I know.

There is no separate underlying felony during the course of which the crime of murder was committed. And, therefore, the court must decline the acceptance of that allegation at this

...