United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RICHARD WEBBER SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Petitioner Eric Brian
Hickerson's Pro Se Petition under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in
State Custody .
Eric Brian Hickerson (“Petitioner”) was convicted
by a jury of attempted burglary in the second degree in
violation of Missouri Revised Statute § 569.170 and
property damage in the first degree in violation of Missouri
Revised Statute § 569.100. He was sentenced to
nine-years imprisonment. His conviction was affirmed by the
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District of Missouri.
Petitioner filed a timely motion for post-conviction relief
pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15. After an
evidentiary hearing, his motion was denied. The judgment was
affirmed on appeal.
Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District of
Missouri described the facts of Petitioner's conviction
On February 25, 2009, sometime after 11:00 p.m., Nathan Wolfe
(“Wolfe”) and John Fritz (“Fritz”)
were driving through the parking lot of O'Fallon Plaza.
As they passed KT's Laundry, Wolfe noticed Defendant
inside wearing a ski mask and using a tool to break into a
vending machine. Defendant appeared to see Wolfe and Fritz
observing him and ducked behind a row of washers and dryers.
Fritz called 911.
Wolfe and Fritz observed Defendant as he stood up, removed
his ski mask, exited KT's Laundry, and walked through the
parking lot. Wolfe and Fritz followed him. Defendant, who
Fritz described to police officers as wearing a dark
sweatshirt, jeans, and white tennis shoes, then entered
HotShots, a bar in the plaza. Wolfe and Fritz continued to
wait for him outside the bar. After a few minutes, Defendant
left the bar and began walking between two buildings near the
parking lot. O'Fallon police officers, including Officer
Eric Feagans (“Officer Feagans”), arrived and
stopped Defendant. After Wolfe and Fritz identified Defendant
as the man they saw in KT's Laundry, Officer Feagans
When asked what he was doing, Defendant told police that he
was waiting for his girlfriend. He offered no further
explanation. Upon searching Defendant, Officer Feagans found
$133 and brown work gloves in Defendant's pockets, and
noted that both the gloves and Defendant's sweatshirt
were covered in white powder. Defendant was transported to
the police station and placed in a holding cell.
Officer Feagans returned to KT's Laundry. He observed
that the back wall, which housed the change machines, had
three large holes in it, and that a sledgehammer covered in
white powder had been left nearby. Officer Feagans, along
with another officer, observed that Defendant's vehicle,
identified through a database search, was still in the
parking lot. In the back of the vehicle, police discovered
William Warner (“Warner”), apparently passed out
from intoxication. Warner's attire did not match
Fritz's description of the man in KT's. Police also
later discovered a ski mask located in a tree near where
Defendant was apprehended. Testing showed that
Defendant's DNA was present in the mask.
After determining that Warner was not involved in the
investigation, Officer Feagans returned to the police
station, where he read Defendant his Miranda rights.
Defendant, as was his right, made no statements. Defendant
was charged with second-degree burglary and first-degree
ECF No. 13-6, pgs. 3-4. Petitioner was convicted by a jury and
sentenced to nine years imprisonment. Petitioner now
challenges his convictions.
state prisoner who believes that he is incarcerated in
violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States
may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal
court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Osborne
v. Purkett, 411 F.3d 911, 914 (8th Cir. 2005). In order
for a federal court to grant an application for a writ of
habeas corpus brought by a person in custody by order of a
state court, the petitioner must show that the state court
(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;
or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an
unreasonable determination of the facts ...