United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
JESSE W. REED, Plaintiff,
JEFF NORMAN, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
W. SIPPEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
case is before me on Petitioner Jesse W. Reed application for
a writ of habeas corpus, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No.
. Reed argues that his due process rights have been
violated in eight ways. ECF No. [1-3]. After careful
consideration, I deny Reed's petition for the reasons set
April 18, 2014, the day of his trial, Reed pled guilty to
three counts of assault in the second-degree, RSMo
565.060.1(4), for driving a vehicle while intoxicated and
causing an accident that injured three people. ECF No. [1-3]
at 30. He also pled guilty to one count of leaving the scene
of a motor vehicle accident, RSMo 577.060, and one count of
operating a motor vehicle with a revoked license, RSMo
302.321. ECF No. [1-3] at 30.
pleading guilty, Reed was sentenced on the same day as a
prior and persistent offender to the maximum sentence for
each charge, to be served consecutively. ECF No. [1-3] at 30.
A total sentence of fifty-nine years. ECF No. [1-3]
to the trial Reed was offered several plea agreements.
Initially, the State offered Reed a plea agreement of nine
years. Reed's defense counsel at the time, Mr. Campbell,
testified that he presented the offer to Reed, who refused
it. Reed's next two attorney's also testified that
they presented the nine-year plea agreement to Reed, who
rejected it each time. After uncovering additional evidence,
the State offered Reed a twenty-year plea agreement and later
a twenty-five-year plea agreement. Reed declined both of
day of his trial, the State offered Reed a thirty-year plea
agreement. Based on the recommendation of his attorney, Reed
declined that offer and entered a blind plea. Reed later
discovered that the judge, who sentence Reed to fifty-nine
years, had a reputation for being tough on defendants who
enter blind pleas. At his state post-conviction hearing,
several attorney's testified to this reputation.
30, 2014, Reed filed a pro se motion to vacate, set aside or
correct the judgment or sentence under Missouri Supreme Court
Rule 24.035. ECF No. [1-3] at 5. After he obtained counsel,
an amended motion was filed arguing that Reed's
constitutional rights were violated because he was subject to
double jeopardy, disproportionate punishment under the Eighth
Amendment, and was not provided effective assistance of
counsel. The post-conviction relief court denied
Houston's motion, and the Missouri Court of Appeals
affirmed that denial. Reed then filed this petition under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 on September 28, 2018. In his petition
Reed raise the following eight claims:
(1) Ineffective assistance of counsel for advising movant to
plead guilty and open him to exposure to the maximum
(2) Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to provide
full and effective representation before the jury trial;
(3) Counsel was not provided adequate time to prepare for
trial because new evidence and new witnesses submitted by the
prosecutor five days before the trial;
(4) The trial judge was biased and improperly imposed the
maximum sentence after movant entered his blind plea;
(5) Ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to raise a
defense of double jeopardy;
(6) Movant was subject to double jeopardy when he was
convicted of three counts of assault in the second degree ...