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.

Coleman v. Cassady

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

February 27, 2019

MICHAEL S. COLEMAN, Petitioner,
v.
JAY CASSADY, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          ABBIE CRITES-LEONI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         This matter is before the Court on the Petition of Michael S. Coleman for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

         I. Procedural History

         Coleman is currently incarcerated at the Jefferson City Correctional Center in Jefferson City, Missouri, pursuant to the sentence and judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri. (Doc. 9-1 at 68.) On August 25, 2011, Coleman pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree statutory rape, four counts of second-degree statutory sodomy, three counts of incest, one count of furnishing pornographic materials to a minor, two counts of first-degree endangering the welfare of a child, and one count of second-degree child molestation. Id. at 66-67. On October 20, 2011, the court sentenced Coleman to an aggregate sentence of twenty years' imprisonment. Id. at 80-85. The trial court also ordered shock incarceration under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 559.115, and recommended placement in the Sexual Offender Assessment Unit (“SOAU”). Id. at 85.

         On February 14, 2012, after reviewing the SOAU report and considering counsels' arguments, the court denied Coleman probation. Id. at 14.

         On November 7, 2012, Coleman filed an “Original Petition Seeking to Modify the Sentence Imposed, ” in which he argued that the sentences imposed were void. Id. at 90-98. On November 14, 2012, the trial court denied Coleman's Petition. Id. at 114. The court construed the Petition as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, and found that it had not been filed in the proper court as Coleman was not confined in St. Louis County. Id.

         On December 31, 2012, Coleman filed an “Original Petition to Set Aside Judgment.” Id. at 118-21.) The trial court denied the Petition on January 3, 2013. Id. at 120.

         Coleman filed a Notice of Appeal on January 22, 2013, indicating that he was appealing the judgment denying his Original Petition to Set Aside Judgment. Id. at 127. Coleman raised the following claims in his appeal: (1) the trial court erred in refusing to provide him with transcripts of the record and (2) the trial court erred in denying him the opportunity to withdraw his guilty pleas after an alleged plea agreement was violated. (Doc. 9-2.) On July 29, 2014, the Missouri Court of Appeals held that Coleman's claim set forth in the Original Petition to Set Aside Judgment should have been raised in a timely-filed Rule 24.035 motion and was, therefore, time-barred. (Doc. 9-4) The court stated that the Petition should have been dismissed by the trial court. Id. Thus, the court vacated the judgment denying the Petition and remanded the cause with instructions to dismiss. Id.

         Coleman filed the instant Petition on December 30, 2015, in which he raises the following grounds for relief: (1) the State entered into a conspiracy to falsely imprison him; (2) his sentences violate the Double Jeopardy Clause; (3) one of his sentences exceeds the maximum sentence allowed under Missouri law, and (4) the State violated an alleged plea agreement. (Doc. 1.)

         Respondent filed a Response to Order to Show Cause, in which he argues that the Petition should be dismissed as untimely. (Doc. 9.) Respondent further argues that Coleman's claims are procedurally defaulted and fail on their merits.

         II. Standard of Review

         A 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 ...

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.