United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on review of petitioner Edison
Hester's response to the Court's September 24, 2018
order to show cause. (Docket No. 12). The Court had ordered
petitioner to show cause why his petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 should not be
summarily dismissed as time-barred. (Docket No. 7). Having
reviewed petitioner's response, and for the reasons
discussed below, the Court must dismiss this action as
April 3, 2007, petitioner was charged with second-degree
burglary, first-degree property damage, and theft/stealing
under $500. State of Missouri v. Hester, No.
0722-CR07452-01 (22nd Cir., St. Louis
City). Petitioner pled guilty to the charges, and
on March 13, 2009, the circuit court sentenced him to
concurrent terms of fifteen years, seven years, and six
months imprisonment respectively. However, the court
suspended the execution of the sentences and placed
petitioner on probation in a long-term treatment
program. Petitioner did not file a direct
November 16, 2011, the circuit court found that petitioner
had violated the conditions of his probation. The circuit
court revoked petitioner's probation and sentenced him to
a total of fifteen years' imprisonment. On August 18,
2014, petitioner filed a state postconviction motion pursuant
to Mo. S.Ct. R. 24.035, challenging the 2009 conviction.
Hester v. State of Missouri, No. 1422-CC09496
(22nd Cir., St. Louis City). Because it was filed
in an untimely manner, the circuit court dismissed
petitioner's motion for post-conviction relief without
filed the instant petition on May 29, 2018, by placing it in
the prison mailing system. He argues in the petition that the
Missouri state circuit court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction and "grossly violated" both his
federal and state due process rights. Specifically,
petitioner asserts that the circuit court lacked subject
matter jurisdiction to accept his plea and impose a sentence.
Petitioner also alleges bad faith on the part of the State of
Missouri, as well as the absence of counsel.
September 24, 2018, the Court ordered petitioner to show
cause why his case should not be summarily dismissed for
untimeliness. The Court noted that under Missouri law, a
suspended execution of sentence is an entry of judgment. The
Court further noted that because petitioner did not file a
direct appeal, his judgment became final ten days after it
was entered. Thus, petitioner's judgment became final on
March 23, 2009, ten days after petitioner was given his
suspended execution of sentence. The one-year statute of
limitations for habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
expired on March 23, 2010. Petitioner, however, did not file
the instant petition until May 29, 2018, far beyond the
one-year limitations period.
was given twenty-one days in which to show cause why his
petition should not be dismissed as time-barred. He
subsequently filed a motion for extension of time to respond,
as well as a motion to produce records. (Docket No. 8; Docket
No. 9). The Court denied petitioner's motion to produce
records. (Docket No. 10). However, the Court granted
petitioner's request for an extension of time, and gave
him thirty additional days in which to file a show cause
response. Petitioner was advised that failure to comply would
result in the dismissal of his case.
October 31, 2018, petitioner filed a document with the Court
that has been construed as his show cause response.
response, petitioner accuses the Court of assuming "the
role of the state" and of "locking [his] hands by
denying him access to records." (Docket No. 12 at 1). He
further asserts that in one of his state cases, he was found
competent, and in another state case, incompetent. (Docket
No. 12 at 2). He claims this is an "impossible
further alleges that he was sentenced on his probation
revocation without being present in court. According to an
exhibit petitioner attached to the response, he was not
present in court because he refused to attend the hearing
when told he could not personally transport his legal file to
the courtroom. (Docket No. 12 at 4-12).
concludes his response by asking the Court to either order
the records, assign counsel, or issue a certificate ...