United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
EDWARD AUTREY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254 [Doc. #1] on February 7, 2014. On March
6, 2014, Petitioner filed an AMENDED/REDACTED PETITION [Doc.
#5]. On April 24, 2014, this court granted Defendant's
Motion for Extension of Time to file Response/Reply. On May
23, 2014 Defendant filed a Response To Order To Show Cause
Why a Writ of Habeas Corpus Should Not be Granted [Doc. #11].
The matter is now fully briefed. For the reasons set forth
below, the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 For Writ of
Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is denied.
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.
was charged in the Circuit Court of Franklin County, Missouri
with one count of Forcible Rape and one count of Statutory
Rape. A jury found him guilty of both offenses. Petitioner
took a timely appeal to the Missouri Court of Appeals,
Eastern District. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed his
convictions on direct appeal.
Petitioner timely filed a pro se post-conviction
motion. No amended motion was filed however a statement
in lieu of the amended motion was filed. The Circuit
Court of Franklin County denied the motion for
post-conviction relief. A timely appeal was taken on the
denial of the motion to the Missouri Court of Appeals,
Eastern District. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the
denial of the post-conviction motion.
raised seven grounds for relief in his Missouri Rule 29.15
motion for post-conviction relief: 1) trial counsel was
ineffective for not following up on information provided by
Walker as to potential witnesses; 2) trial counsel should
have called L.M.A. as an alibi witness; 3) trial counsel
should have had a psychologist conduct an examination of
C.A.; 4) trial counsel should have objected to the prosecutor
allowing the jury to believe that Connilee Boehne was an
expert witness; 5) the trial court erred in overruling an
objection to Davis Stansfield's proposed expert
testimony; 6) trial counsel should have asked about pre-trial
publicity during voir dire; 7) trial counsel should have
introduced the SAFE Exam and C.A.'s deposition into
evidence. Petitioner only raised one claim on appeal of the
adverse post-conviction ruling - that trial counsel was
ineffective for failing to call L.M.A. as an alibi witness.
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;
(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).
construing AEDPA, the United States Supreme Court, in