United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
CAROL E. JACKSON, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the petition of John Randall Schamel for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
At the time the petition was filed, petitioner was incarcerated at the Algoa Correctional Center pursuant to the sentences and judgments of the Circuit Court of Crawford County, Missouri. On November 25, 2008, petitioner pled guilty to the class C felonies of driving while intoxicated, in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 577.010, and stealing a motor vehicle, in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 570.030. The trial court sentenced petitioner to concurrent seven-year terms of imprisonment, but suspended execution of his sentences and placed petitioner into Missouri's long-term treatment program pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. § 217.362. On November 13, 2009, the trial court placed petitioner under supervised probation for a two-year term. The trial court revoked petitioner's first term of probation on January 18, 2011, but retained jurisdiction to determine whether petitioner would be granted a new term of probation under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 559.115. Resp't Ex. F, at 12-14. The trial court granted petitioner a second period of probation on April 18, 2011, placing him under supervision for a five-year term.
On October 20, 2011, petitioner's probation officer filed a probation violation report. Resp't Ex. C. On December 19, 2011, the prosecuting attorney filed motions to revoke petitioner's probation, citing the probation violation report. Resp't Ex. D, E. The trial court held a probation revocation hearing on the state's motions on May 3, 2012. Resp't Ex. F, at 16-22. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that petitioner had violated the conditions of his supervised probation, revoked his probation, executed his previously imposed sentences, and again placed him in Missouri's long-term treatment program under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 217.362. Id. at 17, 19.
On April 4, 2013, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Circuit Court of Webster County, Missouri. After an evidentiary hearing, the postconviction court set aside the trial court's May 3, 2012 order to place petitioner in the long-term treatment program as unlawful, because his successful completion of the program could lead to an unauthorized third term of probation. Resp't Ex. M at 3-5; see Mo. Rev. Stat. § 559.036. The post-conviction court declined to grant petitioner's request for discharge from his 2008-imposed seven-year sentences, finding that the trial court retained authority to correct its mistake and enter a lawful disposition on the state's probation revocation motions. Id. at 5-7. Petitioner filed petitions for a writ of habeas corpus and a writ of prohibition with the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District on June 10, 2013, which were summarily denied the next day.
On June 19, 2013, the trial court reconsidered sentencing for petitioner's probation revocation. Resp't Ex. R. The trial court took judicial notice of petitioner's seven-year sentences imposed on November 25, 2008, petitioner's May 3, 2012 admission to violating conditions of his probation, and the trial court's May 3, 2012 order revoking petitioner's probation and ordering execution of petitioner's previously imposed sentences. Id. at 23-24. The trial court noted its error in sentencing petitioner to the long-term treatment program under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 217.362. Thus, the trial court set aside that portion of the sentence and instead ordered execution of the 2008 sentences. Id. at 24. Thereafter, petitioner filed timely petitions for writs of habeas corpus in the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, and the Missouri Supreme Court. All of the petitions were denied. Resp't Ex. Y, AA, CC. On June 18, 2014, petitioner filed the instant petition for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Petitioner presents five claims for relief: (1) the trial court failed to hold a new probation revocation hearing after the post-conviction court set aside the trial court's May 3, 2012 order as unlawful and unauthorized; (2) he did not receive written notice of the alleged violations of probation before the May 3, 2012 revocation hearing; (3) his counsel at the May 3, 2012 hearing was ineffective because she did not have a legal file on petitioner and agreed to an unlawful sentence; (4) the probation revocation court failed to make independent findings and conclusions at the May 3, 2012 hearing and simply accepted the probation officer's recommendation; and (5) he was not informed of his right to appointed counsel at the January 18, 2011 probation revocation hearing. Petitioner also submitted a "supplemental petition for writ of habeas corpus" and "suggestions in support" of his petition, which reiterate the claims above. [Doc. ##10, 28].
Additional facts will be included as necessary.
II. Legal Standard
When a claim has been adjudicated on the merits in state court proceedings, habeas relief is permissible under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), only if the state court's determination:
(1) 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
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence ...