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.

Burgess v. Glass

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

January 11, 2018

COREY BURGESS, Petitioner,
v.
DALE GLASS, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          RONNIE L. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 relative to his speedy trial claims in his underlying state criminal action. After review of the § 2241 application for writ of habeas corpus, the Court will deny and dismiss this action as a result of petitioner's failure to fully exhaust his state remedies.

         Background

         On September 8, 2016, the Circuit Attorney in St. Louis City filed a criminal complaint against petitioner asserting that on or about August 27, 2016, he had committed felony kidnapping, rape in the second degree, sodomy in the second degree, domestic assault in the second degree and domestic assault in the third degree. State v. Burgess, No. 1622-CR03886-01 (22nd Judicial Circuit, City of St. Louis).[1]

         A grand jury indictment was filed against petitioner on October 18, 2016, bringing the same five counts against petitioner and charging petitioner as a prior and persistent offender. Id. Bond was set at $100, 000, cash only, by the Honorable Jimmie M. Edwards. Id. Petitioner was remanded to custody awaiting trial on the matter, and he was assigned counsel from the Missouri State Public Defender's Office.

         On or about November 17, 2016, petitioner filed a pro se motion "for request of right to a speedy trial" pursuant to Missouri Revised Statute § 545.780. In his motion, petitioner asserted that his liberty interest was being threatened by a lengthy incarceration, and he wished for the matter to be set for trial within "180 days" of his request. The prosecutor's office filed a memorandum with the Court requesting that the case be assigned to a "special docket" as a result of petitioner's request for "speedy trial" on November 28, 2016. Id.

         On January 25, 2017, petitioner's counsel filed a motion for bond reduction, asserting that the cash only bond of $100, 000 was greatly beyond petitioner's financial capacity and higher than bonds normally set for the type of crimes charged in petitioner's indictment. The matter was heard on February 2, 2017, by the Honorable Michael F. Stelzer, and the motion to reduce the bond was denied. Id.

         Hearings were held by Judge Stelzer on April 6, 2017 and May 18, 2017 relating to petitioner's speedy trial request. At each hearing, the trial date had to be continued as a result of ongoing discovery in petitioner's criminal action. For example, on June 1, 2017, petitioner's counsel filed a list of discovery still required in order to defend petitioner in his criminal proceedings. Petitioner's counsel noticed a deposition to be taken on October 4, 2017. And on December 1, 2017, both the prosecutor and petitioner's counsel filed a joint motion to continue the matter from the December 11, 2017 trial docket as a result of defense counsel's request for additional DNA discovery.

         Petitioner's criminal action is currently set for trial on February 5, 2018 in Division 16 in the Carnahan Courthouse.

         Legal Standard

         Under 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 pre-trial 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." Blanch v. Waukesha County, 48 F.Supp.2d 859, 860 (D. Wis. 1999).

         Courts 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); Blanch, 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 Cir. 1995).

         Discussion

         In his application for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, petitioner asserts two grounds for relief. He first asserts that he has been denied a right to speedy trial in his state court ...


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.