Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Larose v. State

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

July 28, 2017

AARON LAROSE, Petitioner,



         This matter is before the Court upon the notice of removal filed by petitioner Aaron Larose, seeking to remove his state court post-conviction action to this Court. The action will be remanded.


         In the case at bar, petitoner cites to two of his state court criminal cases in his Notice of Removal.[1] He states:

Notice is hereby given that Aaron Larose will request the United States District Court ED of Missouri, Eastern District 111 SO. Tenth St., St. Louis, MO 63102 to remove into Federal Court the cases of Aaron Larose, State v. Larose, 0911-CR03956-01 and Case 1411-CC00186, Aaron Larose, on the grounds that Aaron Larose cannot enforce his federal protected supremacy rights, 1st, 5th, 14thAmendments to the Constitution, by currently being assigned a public defender to the case that not only has a reputation of acting on behalf of the state and undermining pending cases, or relevant cases on behalf of the state. Under Missouri precedent Missouri courts provide a haven of refuge for such treachery, of acting in concert in postconviction cases.

         Review reveals that, on April 1, 2011, a jury convicted petitioner of murder in the first degree and armed criminal action. See State v. Larose, No. 0911-CR03956-01 (11th Judicial Circuit, St. Charles County Court). On June 6, 2011, the Court sentenced petitioner to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole on the murder charge and thirty years' imprisonment on the armed criminal action charge, with both counts to run consecutively. Petitioner is presently incarcerated at Potosi Correctional Center (“PCC”).

         Petitioner appealed his convictions and sentences to the Missouri Court of Appeals, which affirmed his conviction on July 16, 2013. See State v. Larose, No. ED97043 (Mo.Ct.App. July 16, 2013). Petitioner subsequently sought and was denied Supreme Court review. State v. Larose, No. SC93690 (Mo. Nov. 26, 2013).

         Petitioner filed a post-conviction motion in the trial court based upon prosecutorial misconduct, violations of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. See Larose v. State, No. 1411-CC00186 (11th Circuit, St. Charles County). Parts of petitioner's motion were denied on the record on March 11, 2015. However, petitioner was granted an evidentiary hearing on certain parts of his motion, which was held on November 6, 2015. The matter was taken under advisement and proposed findings of fact and law were filed at that time. A second hearing was set for July 27, 2017. Although petitioner has been assigned counsel for the hearing, he sought to remove the case to this Court prior to the hearing date.


         In the case at bar, petitioner seeks to remove his motion to vacate his conviction, Case No. 1411-CC00186, to this Court because he allegedly does not believe he will receive a fair review of his post-conviction motion in St. Charles County Court.

         In his petition for removal, petitioner claims that he “cannot enforce his supremacy rights in Missouri Courts to seek DNA testing”[2] in order to prove his purported innocence of his crime. Thus, petitioner believes he should be able to remove his post-conviction motion to this Court for review. Petitioner has not, however, identified a statute, under which he believes that he can base his removal. Nevertheless, the Court will consider the notice of removal, beginning with considering whether removal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1443.

         Section 1443 allows for the removal of a state criminal prosecution “against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction thereof.” 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). Removal jurisdiction under § 1443(1) is very limited. City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 828 (1966); see also Minnesota v. Bey, Nos. 12-CR-0256 & 12-CR-0257 (JRT), 2012 WL 6139223, at *1 (D. Minn. Dec. 11, 2012). In order for a state criminal prosecution to be removed under § 1443(1), the removal petition must satisfy a two-prong test. Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213, 219-20 (1975). First, it must appear that the right allegedly denied the petitioner arises under a federal law providing for civil rights stated in terms of racial equality. Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 792 (1966). Second, it must appear that the petitioner is denied or cannot enforce the specified federal rights in state court. Id. at 803. Satisfaction of the second prong typically requires that the “denial be manifest in a formal expression of state law, ” such as a state legislative or constitutional provision, “rather than a denial first made manifest in the trial of the case.” Id.

         Petitioner has been criminally convicted. Moreover, his post-conviction motion has been partially ruled upon by the St. Charles County Court. It will hold an evidentiary hearing on the remaining part of petitioner's motion for post-conviction relief on July 27, 2017. Thus, the state court criminal case petitioner seeks to remove has been partially adjudicated, and can no longer be considered a state criminal prosecution that can be removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443.

         Even if petitioner were seeking removal of a state court prosecution, he would fail to satisfy either prong of the § 1443(1) test. He fails to allege that he is being denied a right stated in terms of racial equality, and he fails to show that there is a state law preventing him from raising his federal claims in state court. As noted above, petitioner can ...

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.