Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Barmettler v. Wallace

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

March 16, 2017

WILLIAM BARMETTLER, Petitioner,
v.
IAN WALLACE, Respondent.

          OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          HENRY EDWARD AUTREY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 [Doc. #1] on December 23, 2013. On March 20, 2014 Respondent filed his Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause Why Relief Should Not be Granted [Doc. #9]. On June 2, 2014 Petitioner filed his Reply to Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause Why Relief Should Not be Granted. Pursuant to Rule 8 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, this Court has determined that there are no issues asserted that give rise to an evidentiary hearing and therefore one is not warranted, as will be discussed in further detail. For the reasons explained below, the Response to the Order to Show Cause Why Relief Should not be Granted is well taken and the petition will be denied.

         Procedural Background

         On November 9, 2009, Petitioner was convicted by jury of Count I, Statutory Sodomy and Count II, Child Molestation. The Circuit Court in Saint Francois County, on January 8, 2010, sentenced Petitioner to 30 years on count I to be served and run consecutively to 15 years on Count II for a total sentence of 45 years imprisonment in the Missouri Department of Corrections. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District of Missouri, affirmed his convictions. The Petitioner is currently within the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections under the previously referenced sentences.

         Petitioner filed his pro sé motion for post-conviction relief, pursuant to Rule 29.15, relative to the case on December 16, 2011. Thereafter, on December 19, 2011, the Central Appellate Division for the State Public Defender was appointed to represent Petitioner on his Rule 29.15 motion. On March 19, 2012 appointed counsel filed an Amended Motion To Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct the Judgment or Sentence and Request for Evidentiary Hearing. On May 4, 2012 the Missouri state trial court, Hon. Sandy Martinez entered findings of fact and conclusions of law denying the post-conviction relief motion of Petitioner. Petitioner, on July 10, 2012, filed a timely notice of appeal to the Missouri Court of Appeals. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court ruling on the Rule 29.15 motion and issued its mandate on September 26, 2011.

         Petitioner filed this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Respondent on December 23, 2013. Petitioner alleges the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial when a witness testified, allegedly violating a motion in limine, that the victim had post-traumatic stress disorder. Secondly he alleges trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to jury instructions regarding juror unanimity. In Ground 3 Petitioner alleges post-conviction counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the ineffectiveness of appellate counsel in his post-conviction motion.

         Standard of Review

         The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“AEDPA”) applies to all petitions for habeas relief filed by state prisoners after the statute's effective date of April 24, 1996. When reviewing a claim that has been decided on the merits by a state court, AEDPA limits the scope of judicial review in a habeas proceeding as follows:

An application for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim -
(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 presented in the state court proceeding.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

         In construing AEDPA, the United States Supreme Court, in Williams v. Taylor, held that:

Under the ‘contrary to' clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the U.S. Supreme Court] on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than [the U.S. Supreme Court] has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts. Under the ‘unreasonable application' clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the U.S. Supreme Court's] decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner's case.

529 U.S. 362, 412-13 (2000). Furthermore, the Williams Court held that “a federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly.” 529 U.S. at 409.

         A state court decision must be left undisturbed unless the decision was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, or the decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.