Clark v. Falkenrath

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STEPHEN R. CLARK, CHIEF UNITEDSTATES DISTRICT JUDGE

After being convicted of drug possession and distribution, Vance Roy Clark appealed his conviction, moved for post-conviction relief, and filed multiple state habeas petitions. The state courts denied all of his motions. Now, he brings a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, re-raising numerous claims he presented to the state courts. Because the Missouri courts' denials of these same claims were not contrary to, or an unreasonable interpretation of, clearly established federal law, the Court denies Clark's petition.

I. Background

A. State proceedings

“In a proceeding instituted by an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court,” the Court presumes the correctness of “a determination of a factual issue made by a State court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). A petitioner bears the “burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.” Id. The Missouri Court of Appeals described the relevant facts as follows:

The State charged [Clark], as a persistent offender, with three counts of distribution of heroin (Counts I-III), one count of possession of methamphetamine (Count IV), one count of possession of oxycodone (Count V), and one count of

possession of drug paraphernalia (Count VI). Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence at trial showed the following

On February 13, 2015, troopers with the Missouri State Highway Patrol set up a controlled buy with a confidential informant, Mark Canterbury (Canterbury). Canterbury told the troopers he regularly purchased heroin from [Clark] and had arranged to buy one gram from [Clark] for $200. The troopers drove to Canterbury's mother's house, searched Canterbury, and provided Canterbury with a recording device and money to purchase heroin from [Clark] and another seller [Clark] arrived driving a white Cadillac with two other people in the car. Canterbury got into the car and purchased some heroin from a woman in the car and .97 grams of heroin from [Clark]

On February 17, 2015, Canterbury set up another buy with [Clark]. Troopers picked up Canterbury, searched him, gave him a recording device and money for the buy, and drove him to [Clark]'s house at 3416 Hildebrecht Road. Canterbury went into [Clark]'s house and purchased 0.54 grams of heroin for $200.

On February 18, 2015, Canterbury set up a meeting with [Clark] to purchase 15 grams of heroin for $1,800. Troopers again picked up Canterbury, searched him, and drove him to [Clark]'s residence. The troopers outfitted Canterbury with a recording device and provided the money for the transaction. Canterbury purchased approximately 14 grams of heroin from [Clark] for $1,710.

That day, troopers executed a search warrant at [Clark]'s residence at 3416 Hildebrecht Road. The troopers knocked and announced their presence. [Clark] yelled, “I'm here” but refused to open the door. The troopers broke down the door and found [Clark] lying on the floor of the master bedroom. The troopers searched [Clark], finding a $10 bill in his pocket with serial numbers matching one of the bills the troopers had given Canterbury to make the controlled buy earlier that day.

During a search of the house, troopers recovered digital scales in the living room; the bottom of a soda can used for heating heroin for injection; a used syringe on top of a bag of syringes and a spoon with heroin residue in a drawer in the master bedroom; a baggie containing methamphetamine and oxycodone pills behind the bathroom vanity; and a glass smoking device in the bathroom.

The jury found [Clark] guilty on all counts. The court sentenced [Clark] ¶ 30 years' imprisonment each on Counts I and II, 15 years' imprisonment each on Counts III through V, and one year in jail on Count VI. The court ordered the sentences for Counts I and II to run consecutively to each other but concurrent to the remaining sentences.

Doc. 15-10 at 2-3.^[1] Sentencing occurred on January 13, 2017. Doc. 15-3 at 16.

After, Clark filed numerous post-conviction motions. Because Superintendent Doris Falkenrath raises timeliness as an issue, the Court provides relevant dates pertaining to these numerous motions. First, on February 27, 2017, Clark filed a belated Notice of Appeal, which

the Court of Appeals accepted. State v. Clark, No. ED105347 (Mo.Ct.App.). In his appeal, Clark alleged five errors. Doc. 1-7 at 23-24; see Clark, No. ED105347. About a year later, the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the trial-court decision, addressing and denying each of Clark's five points. Docs. 15-9, 15-10. Clark then moved for rehearing/transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court twice. Clark, No. ED105347. The court denied both motions. Id.

After this, Clark filed “Missouri Criminal Procedure Form No. 40” for post-conviction relief. Doc. 1 at 3; doc. 15-13 at 50-101; see Clark v. State, No. 18SF-CC00110 (Mo.Ct.App.). And then, Clark filed an amended motion. Clark, No. 18SF-CC00110; doc. 15-13 at 112-49. In it, he raised six claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Doc. 1-10 at 30; see also doc. 15-13 at 122-47. About two years later, the court denied Clark's motion. Clark, No. 18SF-CC00110. And soon after, Clark appealed the denial. Clark v. State, No. ED109130 (Mo.Ct.App.). After about another year, the appellate court affirmed the denial. Id. Then on November 29, 2021, the court issued its mandate, and Clark immediately moved to recall the mandate. Id. Two months later, the court denied this motion as well. Id.

During this time, Clark also brought a state habeas petition. Clark v. Ramey, No. 21AC-CC00149 (Cole Cir. Ct.). The court denied his petition, and then Clark appealed the denial. Id.; Clark v. Falkenrath, WD84860 (Mo.Ct.App.). In his appeal, Clark raised six points. Doc. 1-9 at 10-13; see Clark, No. WD84860. Soon after, the court denied Clark's petition. See Clark, No. WD84860.

In 2022, Clark filed a second writ-of-habeas-corpus petition in state court. Clark v. Falkenrath, No. 22AC-CC00090 (Cole Cir. Ct.). And like his previous filing, the court denied his petition, id., and the appellate court affirmed the denial, Clark v. Falkenrath, No. WD85478 (Mo.Ct.App.). The appellate court issued its mandate on January 11, 2023. Id.

Six months later, Clark filed a writ of habeas corpus in the Missouri Supreme Court, raising two points. Doc. 1-12 at 11-17; see Clark v. Falkenrath, No. SC100155 (Mo.). The Supreme Court denied his petition shortly thereafter. Clark, No. SC100155.

B. Federal proceeding

On September 18, 2023, Clark placed in the prison mailing system a federal writ-of-habeas-corpus petition. Doc. 1 at 17. In it, he raises five grounds for relief by incorporating several points previously raised in his various state filings: (1) “POINTS I-VI are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein from BRIEF FOR APPELLANT filed in Appeal No. ED105347 (Attachment G),” id. at 5; see also doc. 1-7 at 23-24; (2) “POINTS VII-XII are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein from his Writ of Habeas Corpus filed in No. WD84860 (as POINTS I-VI therein). Attachment I,” doc. 1 at 7; see also doc. 1-9 at 1013; (3) “POINTS XIII-XIV are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein from Writ of Habeas Corpus No. SC100155 (as POINTS I-II therein). Attachment L,” doc. 1 at 8; see also doc. 1-12 at 11-17; (4) “POINTS XV-XX are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein from the Rule 29.15 Amended Motion filed in Case No. 18SF-CC00110 on October 22, 2018,” doc. 1 at 10; see also doc. 1-10 at 30; and (5) “POINT XXI VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS,” doc. 1 at 12. The Court includes the full text of each incorporated claim in Appendix A.

Although Clark claims to raise 21 points, the referenced filings contain only 20. Compare doc. 1 at 5 (asserting doc. 1-7 contains six points) with doc. 1-7 at 23-24 (containing only five points). For ground one, he complains of five alleged trial-court errors. See doc. 1-7 at 23-24. For grounds two and four, he raises numerous ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims. See doc. 1-9 at 10-13; doc. 1-10 at 30; see also doc. 15-13 at 122-47. For ground three, he

alleges two more Missouri-court errors. See doc. 1-12 at 11-17. And for ground five, he brings a due-process claim. Doc. 1 at 12.

II. Standard

A state prisoner who seeks relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must prove that he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” To obtain relief under section 2254, a petitioner must establish that the state-court proceedings:

(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). To warrant relief, a state court's decision must be “more than incorrect or erroneous”; it “must be objectively unreasonable.” Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75 (2003). A petitioner must also show that equitable considerations favor relief. “[E]ven a petitioner who prevails under [the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act] must still today persuade a federal habeas court that ‘law and justice require' relief.” Brown v. Davenport, 596 U.S. 118, 134 (2022) (citations omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (“A court, justice, or judge entertaining an...