United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
CRITES-LEONI, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on the Petition of Curtis Collins
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
December 15, 2009, Collins pleaded guilty to one count of
manufacturing or production of a controlled substance in the
Circuit Court of Ste. Genevieve County, Missouri. (Doc. 10-1
at 23-29.) The court sentenced Collins to a term of fifteen
years' imprisonment. Id. at 8. The court
suspended execution of that sentence and placed him on
probation for a period of five years. Id.
Collins' probation was revoked on January 17, 2012.
Id. at 12.
February 29, 2012, Collins filed a pro se Motion to
Vacate, Set Aside or Correct the Judgment or Sentence
pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 24.035. Id.
at 34-40. On August 7, 2012, after appointment of counsel,
Collins filed an Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or
Correct Judgment and Sentence. Id. at 45-48. Collins
argued that he was denied effective assistance of counsel
because plea counsel failed to adequately investigate his
case; and failed to raise the issue of the prosecutor's
conflict of interest. Id. On November 5, 2012, the
motion court denied Collins' motion, and his request for
an evidentiary hearing. Id. at 49-51.
appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief, Collins
argued that post-conviction counsel abandoned him by failing
to sufficiently allege facts in support of his request for
relief. (Doc. 10-2.) On June 28, 2013, the Missouri Court of
Appeals dismissed Collins' appeal, finding his claim was
not properly before the court. (Doc. 10-5.)
November 12, 2014, Collins, pro se, filed the
instant Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 1). In
his sole ground for relief, Collins argues that
post-conviction appellate counsel was ineffective for failing
to assert the claims raised in his post-conviction motion and
instead asserting only the abandonment claim.
March 3, 2015, Respondent filed a Response to Order to Show
Cause, in which he argues that the Petition is untimely.
Respondent argues in the alternative that Petitioner's
claim is not cognizable. (Doc. 10-8.)
has filed a Traverse, in which he provides additional
argument in support of his claims. (Doc. 11.)
Standard of Review
federal court's power to grant a writ of habeas corpus is
governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), which provides:
(d) An application for a 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