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.

Houston v. Precythe

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

March 27, 2019

DAMON J. HOUSTON, Petitioner,
v.
ANNE L. PRECYTHE, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          RODNEY W. SIPPEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff Damon Houston seeks a writ of habeas corpus, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. I referred this petition to United States Magistrate Judge Noelle Collins for a report and recommendation on all dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The Magistrate Judge recommended that I deny Houston's petition. According to the Magistrate judge, seven of Houston's ten grounds are procedurally defaulted (ECF No. 24 at 5-13), one of Houston's grounds is not cognizable in a federal habeas corpus action (Id. at 14-15), and two of his grounds do not meet the § 2254 standard on the merits. (Id. at 15-24). Houston objects to the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendations. Houston's objections and underlying arguments do not demonstrate that the state post-conviction court adjudicated claims contrary to federal law or made an unreasonable determination of facts. As a result, I will deny his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

         BACKGROUND

         On September 12, 2011, Houston was convicted of one count of forcible rape, one count of attempted forcible sodomy, and one count of victim tampering in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis. (ECF Nos. 23-1, 16-1). Houston was sentenced to concurrent sentences of life without the possibility of parole for the forcible rape and attempted forcible sodomy. He was also sentenced to three years for witness tampering. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed Houston's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. (ECF No. 13-3); State v. Houston, 386 S.W.3d 888 (Mo.Ct.App. 2012). On February 22, 2013, Houston filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct the judgment or sentence under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15. The post-conviction relief court denied Houston's motion, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that denial. (ECF Nos. 16-2, 13-6); Houston v. State, 469 S.W.3d 503 (Mo. Ct. Ap. 2015).

         On February 4, 2016, Houston filed his petition in this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Houston raises the following ten grounds for relief:

(1) Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present evidence of consensual sex between Houston and the victim six months prior to the crimes in question, (Doc. 1 at 16);
(2) The motion court erred in refusing to review the additional claims Houston raised in his pro se Rule 29.15 Motion because they were allegedly illegible, (id. at 21);[1]
(3) The trial court failed to direct a verdict at the close of all of the evidence despite the State's failure to prove Houston took a substantial step toward completing the crime of attempted forcible sodomy, (id. at 23);
(4) Direct appeal counsel failed to adequately use the “Destructive Contradiction Doctrine” to challenge the victim's testimony, (id. at 25);
(5) Trial counsel failed to subpoena police Officer Scott A. Wilmont as a key witness to provide impeachment evidence against the victim, (id. at 26);
(6) Trial counsel failed to properly lay a foundation to impeach a key state witness, (id. at 28);
(7) Trial counsel failed to object to an exhibit that was not produced before trial, showing the location of the crime relative to a White Castle, (id. at 29);
(8) Direct appeal counsel failed to raise “under Plain Error review” the State's failure to produce the White Castle exhibit, (id. at 31);
(9) Trial counsel failed to make a timely and proper objection to the State's motion in limine preventing testimony that the victim had previous sexual ...

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.