United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 [Doc. No.1]. Respondent filed a Response
to the Court's Order to Show Cause Why Relief Should Not
be Granted. Petitioner has filed his Reply to Response to
Order to Show Cause. For the reasons set forth below, the
Response to the Order to Show Cause Why Relief Should not be
Granted is well taken and the petition will be denied. Since
the filing of the Petition, Petitioner has been released on
and Procedural Background
Missouri Court of Appeal summarized the relevant facts in its
Opinion affirming the trial court. Respondent has set out
that summary in his Response, which summary is incorporated
17, 2011, Petitioner was convicted of two counts of felony
possession of a controlled substance. (No. 0922-CR00725-01).
On October 6, 2011, he was sentenced to two concurrent terms
of imprisonment of seven years. (Id.). Petitioner
has been released from prison and is currently on parole.
November 7, 2011, Petitioner appealed his conviction. (No.
ED97564). The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed on December
26, 2012. State v. Blanchard, 400 S.W.3d 316
(Mo.Ct.App. 2012). Petitioner's application to transfer
his appeal to the Supreme Court of Missouri was filed on
January 10, 2013, and denied on June 25, 2013. (No. SC93391).
While Petitioner's initial appeal was pending, he filed a
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Supreme Court of
Missouri, which was denied on August 8, 2012. (No. SC92668).
26, 2013, Petitioner filed a pro se motion for
post-conviction relief pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court
Rule 29.15. (No. 1322-CC09060). Counsel entered an appearance
for Petitioner on November 6, 2013 and filed an amended
motion on February 4, 2014. (Id.).
December 4, 2013, while Petitioner's pro se
motion for post-conviction relief was pending in state court,
he filed a federal habeas petition, which was dismissed
without prejudice for failing to exhaust administrative
order dated February 18, 2014, the state motion court denied
Petitioner's amended motion for post-conviction relief.
(No. 1322-CC09060). On March 31, 2014, Petitioner filed an
appeal of the state motion court's denial of his motion
for post-conviction relief. The Missouri Appellate Court
affirmed the denial of Petitioner's post-conviction
relief on March 31, 2015.
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (“AEDPA”) applies to all
petitions for habeas relief filed by state prisoners after
the statute's effective date of April 24, 1996. When
reviewing a claim that has been decided on the merits by a
state court, AEDPA limits the scope of judicial review in a
habeas proceeding as follows:
An application for 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
in the state court proceeding.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
construing AEDPA, the United States Supreme Court, in