United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CHARLES A. SHAW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on the federal habeas corpus
petition of state prisoner Kenneth Winfield, a/k/a Kenneth
Wenfeel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This case was
referred to United States Magistrate Judge John M.
Bodenhausen for report and recommendation on all dispositive
matters and for final disposition on all non-dispositive
matters, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
sole remaining claim in the habeas petition is Ground One,
which asserts that there was insufficient evidence to support
petitioner's convictions for Robbery in the first degree
and Armed Criminal Action. Petitioner challenges the
State's evidence as “based purely on eyewitness
testimony by the victims involved, ” challenges the
quality of the victims' identifications, and asserts that
the “State had no other evidence tying Petitioner to
either robbery.” Pet. at 5-6.
2, 2016, Judge Bodenhausen filed a Report and Recommendation
of United States Magistrate Judge which recommended that the
petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied. Petitioner
filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, asserting that the Magistrate Judge applied
an “inadequate” standard of review and erred in
concluding (1) that the Missouri Court of Appeals reasonably
determined the facts in this matter and that petitioner is
not entitled to relief; (2) that a Jackson v.
Virginia analysis is not concerned with the quality
of an eyewitness identification; and (3) that the Magistrate
Judge could not engage in an analysis “that was
concerned with the quality of the eyewitness identification
of the Petitioner[.]” Objections at 2. In the
Objections, petitioner insists that his claim is brought only
under Jackson v. Virginia, reiterates his criticisms
as to the sufficiency and reliability of the eyewitness
evidence against him, and asserts for the first time that the
pretrial identification procedures utilized by the police
were impermissibly suggestive. Id. at 3, 8.
Court has conducted a thorough de novo review of the
entire record of this matter, including the underlying state
court record, the parties' briefing, the Report and
Recommendation, and petitioner's Objections. After
careful consideration following de novo review, the
Court concurs in the recommendation and reasoning of the
Magistrate Judge and therefore will adopt the Report and
Recommendation and deny Winfield's habeas petition.
late assertion in his Objections that the pretrial
identification procedures utilized by the police were
impermissibly suggestive is procedurally defaulted because
petitioner did not raise it on direct appeal in the state
courts, and therefore this Court cannot considered it.
“A petitioner must present both the factual and legal
premises of his claims to the state courts in order to
exhaust the claims properly.” Dansby v. Hobbs,
766 F.3d 809, 823 (8th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks
and quoted case omitted). “The legal aspect of this
requirement is satisfied if the petitioner's argument to
the state court refers to a specific federal constitutional
right, a particular constitutional provision, a federal
constitutional case, or a state case raising a pertinent
federal constitutional issue.” Id. (internal
quotation marks, brackets and quoted case omitted).
direct appeal to the Missouri Court of Appeals, petitioner
argued only that the trial court erred in denying his motions
for judgment of acquittal and for new trial because there was
insufficient evidence to sustain the convictions, as the
victims' eyewitness identifications were faulty and there
was no other evidence of his guilt. Petitioner did not raise
before the state court the legally distinct claim he now
attempts to assert: that admission of the victims'
eyewitness identifications into evidence violated his due
process rights because the faulty identifications were
procured as a result of improperly suggestive police
a defendant has procedurally defaulted a claim by failing to
raise it on direct review, the claim may be raised in habeas
only if the defendant can first demonstrate either
‘cause' and actual ‘prejudice, ' or that
he is ‘actually innocent[.]'” Bousley v.
United States, 523 U.S. 614, 622 (1998) (internal
citations omitted). Petitioner has not attempted to meet
either standard and therefore the Court cannot address his
newly asserted claim.
the Eighth Circuit has held that a party may not offer new
legal theories in objections to a magistrate judge's
report and recommendation, when those arguments have not been
presented to the magistrate judge or addressed in the report
and recommendation. “[W]hen a magistrate judge is
hearing a matter pursuant to his or her limited authority to
make a recommended disposition, a claimant must present all
his claims squarely to the magistrate judge, . . . to
preserve them for review.'” Madol v. Dan Nelson
Auto. Group, 372 F.3d 997, 1000 (8th Cir. 2004)
(internal quotation marks and quoted case omitted). “A
party cannot, in his objections to [a Report and
Recommendation], raise arguments that were not clearly
presented to the magistrate judge.” Ridenour v.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms., Inc., 679 F.3d 1062, 1067
(8th Cir. 2012) (quoted case omitted) (party waived claim
where it was not presented to the magistrate judge, and
district court properly refused to consider it).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's Objections are
FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge is sustained, adopted and
incorporated herein. [Doc. 23]
FURTHER ORDERED that Kenneth Winfield's, a/k/a Kenneth
Wenfeel, Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to Title
28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED. [Doc. 1]
FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED, with no