United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STEPHEN R CLARK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Petitioner Carnell Reed's
pro se Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ
of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody .
Circuit Court of St. Louis County convicted Reed of one count
of forcible sodomy and two counts of forcible rape after a
bench trial and, on October 28, 2013, sentenced Reed to three
concurrent terms of life imprisonment. Reed appealed, and the
Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction on April
28, 2015. Doc. 6-3. Reed did not seek rehearing or transfer
to the Missouri Supreme Court. Reed filed a motion for
post-conviction relief in the circuit court on June 22, 2015.
Doc. 6-8. The circuit court denied Reed's motion, he
appealed, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the
denial on May 23, 2017. Doc. 6-6. Reed did not request
rehearing or transfer. The Court of Appeals issued its
mandate on June 16, 2017. Doc. 6-7. On May 21, 2018, Reed
filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. 1.
state prisoner who believes that he is incarcerated in
violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States
may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal
court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Osborne
v. Purkett, 411 F.3d 911, 914 (8th Cir. 2005). In order
for a federal court to grant an application for a writ of
habeas corpus brought by a person in custody by order of a
state court, the petitioner must show that the state court
(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;
or (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)(1)-(2). A determination of a factual
issue made by a state court is presumed to be correct unless
the petitioner successfully rebuts the presumption of
correctness by clear and convincing evidence. Id. at
court's decision is “contrary to” clearly
established Supreme Court precedent “if the state court
either ‘applies a rule that contradicts the governing
law set forth in [Supreme Court] cases' or
‘confronts a set of facts that are materially
indistinguishable from a decision of [the] Court and
nevertheless arrives at a result different from [the]
precedent.'” Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S.
782, 792 (2001) (citing Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S.
362, 405-406 (2000)). An unreasonable application of clearly
established Supreme Court precedent exists where the state
court identifies the correct governing legal principle but
unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the case.
Ryan v. Clark, 387 F.3d 785, 790 (8th Cir. 2004).
Finally, a state court decision may be considered an
unreasonable determination of the facts “only if it is
shown that the state court's presumptively correct
factual findings do not enjoy support in the record.”
asserts four grounds for relief in his petition for writ of
habeas corpus. The first and second grounds challenge the
sufficiency of the evidence supporting Reed's conviction.
Reed's third asserted ground for relief alleges that at
least one of his victim's testimony was motivated by
“peer pressure.” Finally, Reed alleges that
forensic evidence in his case was easily tampered with.
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1):
A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application
for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant
to the judgment of a State court. The limitation ...