United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
JEAN M. SOLIS, Petitioner,
ANGELA MESMER, Respondent.
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
EDWARD AUTREY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 [Doc. #1] on June 2, 2014. On July 25,
2014, Respondent filed her Response to the Court's Order
to Show Cause Why Relief Should Not be Granted [Doc. #4].
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.
For the reasons delineated below, the Response to the Order
to Show Cause Why Relief Should not be Granted is well taken
and the petition will be denied.
4, 2012, Petitioner was convicted by jury of Attempt to
Manufacture a Controlled Substance. The Circuit Court of
Crawford County trial court, on July 17, 2012, sentenced her
to a sentence of 18 years in the Missouri Department of
Corrections. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
of Missouri, affirmed her conviction. The Petitioner is
currently within the custody of the Missouri Department of
Corrections under the previously referenced sentence.
Petitioner filed this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
against Respondent on June 2, 2014. Petitioner alleges that
1) the trial court erred in overruling her motion to suppress
and in admitting the evidence at trial, because evidence was
obtained pursuant to an allegedly unreasonable search and
seizure; 2) the state failed to present sufficient evidence
to prove each element of the offense.
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
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.
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