United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
KAREN R. CRAVINS, Petitioner,
DALE GLASS, Respondent.
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
EDWARD AUTREY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is petitioner's application for writ of habeas
corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. After
review of the application for writ of habeas corpus, the
Court will deny and dismiss this action.
6, 2016, a grand jury indicted petitioner in Missouri State
Court on one count of felony forgery. Missouri v.
Cravins, No. 1722-CR1415-01 (City of St. Louis). The
Court found petitioner to be a prior and persistent offender
based on two prior convictions for stealing: one in 1985 and
the other in 1990, both in St. Louis City Court.
filed the instant action on October 30, 2017, asserting that
her rights had been violated upon issuance of her arrest
warrant on June 6, 2017, by Missouri state court Judge
Michael F. Stelzer. Petitioner claims that the warrant was
not based on probable cause, and that she has been detained
in St. Louis City Medium Security Institution
(“MSI”) without an arraignment for seven (7)
further claims that she has been subjected to double jeopardy
“on stealing, ” because she believes that the
1990 charge for forgery was set aside on a motion to vacate,
brought pursuant to Rule 29.15.
petitioner asserts that she is not receiving effective
assistance of counsel in her criminal case in state court.
Petitioner seeks immediate release from custody.
Court has reviewed petitioner's criminal case docket on
Missouri.Case.Net and found that petitioner is represented in
her state criminal case by a Missouri Public Defender.
See Missouri v. Cravins, No. 1722-CR1415-01
(City of St. Louis).
28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), the federal courts have
jurisdiction over pretrial habeas petitions. Neville v.
Cavanagh, 611 F.2d 673, 675 (7th Cir.1979).
“Despite the existence of jurisdiction, however,
federal courts are reluctant to grant pretrial habeas
relief." Id. Only when “special
circumstances" exist will a federal court find that a
pretrial detainee has exhausted state remedies. Id.
“In most cases courts will not consider claims
that can be raised at trial and in subsequent state
proceeding." Blanck v. Waukesha County, 48
F.Supp.2d 859, 860 (D. Wis. 1999).
have found that “special circumstances" existed
where double jeopardy was at issue or where a speedy trial
claim was raised. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit
Court, 410 U.S. 484, 488 (1973) (speedy trial);
Blanck, 48 F.Supp.2d at 860 (double jeopardy).
However, a petition must contain enough facts to state a
claim as a matter of law and must not be merely conclusory.
Frey v. City of Herculaneum, 44 F.3d 667, 671 (8th
in these circumstances, the grounds raised by petitioner do
not constitute the “special circumstances"
required for a finding that she has exhausted her available
state remedies. Petitioner first argues that the double
jeopardy clause prohibits the use of prior convictions to
enhance her charge on the Indictment as a “prior and
persistent offender.”Petitioner misunderstands the
double jeopardy clause. The double jeopardy clause protects a
criminal defendant from multiple punishments for the same
offense. See Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 366
courts have consistently found that enhancement of a criminal
defendant's sentence with prior convictions
“‘does not constitute a separate offense or
punishment, but a single culmination of a single accusation
and adjudication of guilt.'” Berry v.
State, 714 S.W.2d 676, 678 (Mo.Ct. App. 1986) quoting
State v. Quick, 639 S.W.2d 880, 884 (Mo.Ct.App.
1982); See also Layton v. State of S.D., 918 F.2d
739, 743 (8th Cir.1990) (application of both habitual
offender statute and statute permitting doubling of sentence
if defendant is in prison did not violate double jeopardy).
The double jeopardy clause is not implicated where a criminal
defendant is not punished more than once for an offense, but
rather only the severity of his sentence is determined.
petitioner's allegations are conclusory and do not
contain any facts, which if proved, would demonstrate that
she was held without an arraignment. In fact, a review of
Mo.Case.Net shows that petitioner was arraigned through video
proceedings in front of Associate Circuit Judge Timothy James
Boyer on August 9, 2017. Missouri v. Cravins, No.
1722-CR1415-01 (City of St. ...