United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
LARRY K. REED, Petitioner,
MICHAEL BOWERSOX,  Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOHN A. ROSS, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Larry K. Reed's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The Government responded (Doc. 8). For the following reasons, Petitioner's Section 2254 petition is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
I. Introduction and Background
On November 5, 2007, Petitioner pled guilty to one count of first-degree attempted robbery, one count of first-degree assault, and two counts of armed criminal action in Case Number XXXXX-XXXXX, and one count of first-degree robbery and one count of armed criminal action in Case Number XXXXX-XXXXX. The court accepted his open plea and sentenced him to fourteen (14) years' imprisonment with the Missouri Department of Corrections.
Petitioner did not file a direct appeal of his convictions or sentences. He did, however, file a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the judgment and sentence pursuant to Rule 24.035 of the Missouri Rules of Criminal Procedure. In his post-conviction relief ("PCR") motion, Petitioner raised one claim:
1) Plea counsel was ineffective in failing to exercise the customary skill and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would exercise under the same or similar circumstances in the she misinformed him that he would only have to serve three years before being released on probation and did not inform him that, under Section 558.019 RSMo, he would have to serve at least 85% of his first-degree robbery and first-degree assault sentences because they are classified as dangerous felonies.
(Ex. B at 92-104). On September 13, 2011, the Missouri Court of Appeals rejected his claim and affirmed the denial of his PCR (Ex. E).
On December 15, 2011, Petitioner filed the instant Section 2254 petition in which he raises the following three grounds for relief:
1) Plea counsel was ineffective because she told Petitioner that after he served three years for armed criminal action, he would be released from DOC on probation for the remaining charges.
2) Plea counsel was ineffective because she neglected Petitioner's case.
3) Plea counsel was ineffective because she "misled me from the beginning" (Doc. 1 at 6).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a district court "shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court 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). Federal courts may not grant habeas relief on a claim that has been decided on the merits in State court unless that adjudication:
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the ...