United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JEAN C. HAMILTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Anthony Leonard’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody. (Petition, ECF No. 4). The Petition has been fully briefed and is ready for disposition.
On May 21, 2008, Leonard was convicted by a jury on three counts: (1) first-degree robbery; (2) armed criminal action; and (3) first-degree burglary. He was sentenced on the first count to 18 years imprisonment, on the second to 10 years imprisonment, and on the third to 15 years imprisonment. (Petition at 1; State Response, ECF No. 7, at 1). Those terms were ordered to run concurrently. (State Response at 1). Leonard’s conviction was upheld on direct appeal in the Missouri Court of Appeals. (Direct Appeal Order, Resp. Exh. 5). Leonard was then denied post-conviction relief under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15. (Rule 29.15 Order, Resp. Exh. 9).
Leonard raises fourteen claims in this Petition:
1. That the trial court erred in granting the State’s motion to strike Juror Selvin Bell for cause.
2. That the trial court erred in admitting three prison photographs of Leonard.
3. That the trial court erred in denying Leonard’s motion for a mistrial.
4. That the trial court erred in denying Leonard’s motion to strike Juror Robert Bray for cause.
5. That the trial court erred in overruling Leonard’s objection to the hearsay testimony of witness Otis Woodard.
6. That the trial court erred in denying Leonard’s motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of evidence.
7. That the State failed to turn over a “911 tape” in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
8. That the trial court erred in allowing a second instance of hearsay testimony.
9. That Leonard’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call certain witnesses.
10. That Leonard’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call Leonard’s boss, Jim Petty, who would have provided an alibi.
11. That Leonard’s appellate attorney was ineffective for failing to raise all the claims contained in Leonard’s motion for a new trial.
12. That Leonard’s appellate attorney was ineffective for failing to submit to the Court of Appeals the photographs Leonard claims were erroneously admitted into evidence.
13. That Leonard’s post-conviction counsel was ineffective for failing to claim ineffective assistance of appellate counsel based Leonard’s appellate attorney’s failure to submit those photographs.
14. That Leonard’s post-conviction counsel was ineffective in failing to raise several claims before the motion court.
(Petition at 6, 7, 9, 11, 11(a), 11(b), 11(c), 11(d), 11(f), 11(g), 11(h), 11(i)). Leonard properly presented only a few of ...