Williams v. Sachse
Decision Date | 28 September 2022 |
Docket Number | 4:19-CV-02272-SPM |
Parties | MAURICE WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. JENNIFER SACHSE, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This matter is before the Court on the pro se petition of Missouri state prisoner Maurice Williams (“Petitioner”) for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). (Doc. 7). For the following reasons, the petition will be denied.
In his direct appeal, Petitioner asserted three points of error: (1) that the trial court erred in denying Petitioner's motion to suppress evidence related to the out-of-court identification made by Mr. Bruner, because the show-up identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive; (2) that the trial court erred in denying Petitioner's request for a continuance to secure the testimony of Evidence Technician Unit Officer Julie Sommer, because her testimony would have contradicted the testimony of Mr. Turner regarding damage to the front door and other statements; and (3) that the trial court erred in accepting the guilty verdicts on each count of first degree burglary and stealing, because there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that Petitioner entered 4922 Penrose or a finding that the items seized from him at the time of his arrest were taken from 4922 Penrose. Resp't Ex. 4, at 11-13. On August 16, 2016, the Missouri Court of Appeals denied all three points of error on the merits and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Resp't Ex. 8.
On October 14, 2016, Petitioner filed a pro se motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15. Resp't Ex. 11, at 24-30.[4] Subsequently, acting through counsel, Petitioner filed an amended motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15. Id. at 35-96. In the amended motion, Petitioner asserted eight claims of ineffective assistance of counsel,[5] plus a paragraph describing in summary fashion the claims raised in the pro se motion.[6] Id. at 38-91. On July 5, 2017, following an evidentiary hearing, the motion court entered an order denying the first eight claims on the merits. Id. at 108-41. With regard to the paragraph summarizing Plaintiff's various pro se claims, the motion court denied the claims because Petitioner did not comply with Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15(g)[7] in raising them. Id. at 139-40. The court also found that most of the claims in the list pertained to trial court errors not cognizable in a Rule 29.15 motion. Id. at 140.
On appeal from the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, Petitioner raised three claims: (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel in offering instruction eight, an instruction on eyewitness testimony based on a provisional version of MAI-CR 302.01 that failed to list all of the required factors and had other defects; (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel in failing to request submission of a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of trespass in the first degree; and (3) ineffective assistance of trial counsel in failing to move to strike juror Goodwin. Resp't Ex. 12, at 15-20. On December 18, 2018, the Missouri Court of Appeals found all three claims to be without merit and affirmed the judgment of the motion court. Resp't Ex. 16.
In the instant petition, Petitioner raises 39 separate grounds for habeas relief, several of which include multiple embedded claims.
A prisoner in custody under the judgment and sentence of a state court may seek habeas relief under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), “only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). It is well established that “federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law.” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 (1991) (quoting Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990)). See also Nance v. Norris, 392 F.3d 284, 289 (8th Cir. 2004) ( ). In a habeas proceeding, the Court reviews claims of error “only to determine whether an alleged error infringes upon a specific constitutional protection or is so prejudicial as to be a denial of due process.” Brende v. Young, 907 F.3d 1080, 1084 (8th Cir. 2018) (quoting Rousan v. Roper, 436 F.3d 951, 958 (8th Cir. 2006)).
Federal habeas review exists only “as ‘a guard against extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems, not a substitute for ordinary error correction through appeal.'” Woods v. Donald, 575 U.S. 312, 316 (2015) (per curiam) (quoting Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 102-03 (2011)).
The Court will address Petitioner's claims in two groups: (A) claims Petitioner...
To continue reading
Request your trial