United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
W. SIPPEL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on petitioner's motion for
reconsideration of his request for a stay and abeyance
pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005).
[Doc.#7] The motion for reconsideration will be denied.
was found guilty, after a jury trial in St. Louis County
Court, of two counts of first-degree child molestation, one
count of statutory sodomy and three counts of statutory rape.
Petitioner was sentenced on November 10, 2011, to life
imprisonment on each of the statutory rape counts, life
imprisonment on the statutory sodomy count, and 15 years'
imprisonment on each of the two child molestation counts,
with the sentences to be served concurrently. See State
v. Edwards, 08SL-CR03022 (21st Judicial
Circuit, St. Louis County Court).
his conviction was affirmed on appeal, see State v.
Edwards, ED97695 (Mo.Ct.App. April 30, 2013), petitioner
filed a pro se Rule 29.15 motion that included a multitude of
claims. See Edwards v. State, No. 11SL-CC05160
(21st Judicial Circuit, St. Louis County Court).
Counsel was appointed for petitioner, and counsel filed an
amended motion. The amended motion wholly superseded the pro
se motion. The circuit court denied the motion, and the
Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed. See Edwards v.
State, No. ED 101855 (Mo.Ct.App. September 15, 2015).
filed his federal habeas petition by placing it in the prison
mailing system on July 28, 2016. At that time, petitioner
also filed a motion to stay and abey ruling on his petition
while he exhausted his state court remedies.
was asked to submit an amended application for writ, which he
did, on September 16, 2016. Because petitioner's federal
habeas petition contained the entirety of the claims
petitioner raised in his direct appeal and in his Rule 29.15
motion, the Court denied petitioner's application to stay
and abey on October 28, 2016. Petitioner seeks
reconsideration of the Court's Memorandum and Order.
motion for reconsideration and renewal of his request to stay
and abey this habeas action, petitioner states that he has
filed a Rule 91 habeas petition in Washington County state
court. Petitioner asserts that in his Rule 91 petition he is
asserting that after he pled guilty to committing statutory
rape, statutory sodomy and child molestation in St. Louis
City Case No. 0822-CR02764-01, he should not have been tried
for the same offenses in St. Louis County Case No.
Court has reviewed Missouri.Case.Net and found that
petitioner has indeed filed a new Rule 91 state habeas
petition since the time of the Court's prior Memorandum
and Order in Washington County, Missouri. However, the State
Court of Washington County, or more specifically the
Honorable Judge Troy Hyde, has already dismissed
petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus.
See Edwards v. Griffin, No. 16WA-CC00425
(24th Judicial Circuit, Washington County Court).
Thus, petitioner's request for reconsideration of the
denial of the stay and abeyance is moot given that his Rule
91 petition has already been denied in Missouri state
as noted in the Court's prior Memorandum and Order, the
Court has reviewed petitioner's underlying state court
briefs on Westlaw and found that he has already litigated, in
both his appeal of his conviction, as well as his
post-conviction appeal process, the collateral consequences
of his guilty plea in the St. Louis City action. See,
e.g., State v. Edwards, No. ED97695, 2012 WL 5510137
(Mo.Ct.App. October 31, 2012); see also, Edwards v.
State, No. ED100625, 2014 WL4389703 (Mo.Ct.App. July 16,
2014). Thus, there are no non-futile state remedies by which
petitioner can present his claims relative to the collateral
consequences of his prior plea to the state court. See
Smittie v. Lockhart, 843 F.2d 295, 296 (8th
Cir.1988). As such, there are no other means by which
petitioner can move to exhaust any additional claims in state
result, all of petitioner's claims are exhausted, and the
petition is not subject to stay and abeyance under
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's request for
reconsideration of the denial of his motion to stay and ...