Coleman v. Ramey

JOHN COLEMAN, Petitioner, v. EILEEN RAMEY¹ , Respondent.

No. 1:18-CV-160 RLW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

January 20, 2021

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner John Coleman's pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody. (ECF No. 1.) For the following reasons, the Court will deny the Petition.

Procedural History

Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the Jefferson City Correctional Center in the Missouri Department of Corrections pursuant to a judgment and sentence of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri. On June 26, 2013, a jury found Petitioner guilty of one count of first-degree robbery. On August 30, 2013, the trial court sentenced Petitioner as a persistent offender under Missouri Revised Statutes § 558.016 (Cum. Supp. 2010), to thirty years' imprisonment.

Petitioner appealed his conviction to the Missouri Court of Appeals and raised three claims of trial court error. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed. State v. Coleman, 458 S.W.3d 452 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015) (per curiam) (unpublished memorandum) (Resp. Ex. E, ECF No. 14-5).

Petitioner timely filed a pro se Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct the Judgment or Sentence pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15 (ECF No. 14-7 at 6-11). Petitioner's post-conviction counsel timely filed an Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence and Request for Evidentiary Hearing (ECF No. 14-7 at 17-32), that raised two claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel: (1) failure to investigate and call a potential alibi witness, Mr. James Gordon; and (2) promising Defendant's testimony during voir dire. The motion court held an evidentiary hearing on February 19, 2016, and denied the postconviction motion on February 29, 2016 (ECF No. 14-7 at 36-43). The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the motion court's denial of postconviction relief on June 12, 2018. Coleman v. State, No. ED105663 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018) (per curiam) (unpublished memorandum) (Resp. Ex. K, ECF No. 14-11).

Pleading Standard

Respondent first argues that the Petition should be dismissed because Petitioner failed to properly plead pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 2(c). Respondent states that Petitioner alleges only two summary two grounds for relief, the first being "Direct Appeal," and the second "Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District." (ECF No. 14 at 5, citing ECF No. 1 at 5, 6.)

The Eighth Circuit has held "that in order to substantially comply with the Section 2254 Rule 2(c), a petitioner must state specific, particularized facts which entitle him or her to habeas corpus relief for each ground specified. These facts must consist of sufficient detail to enable the court to determine, from the face of the petition alone, whether the petition merits further habeas corpus review." Adams v. Armontrout, 897 F.2d 332, 334 (8th Cir. 1990). The Eighth Circuit has also held, however, that "a petition filed by a pro se petitioner should be 'interpreted liberally and. . . should be construed to encompass any allegation stating federal relief.'" Harris v. Wallace, No. 18-3717, 2021 WL 27786 at *3, ___ F.3d ___ (8th Cir. Jan. 5, 2021) (quoted case omitted).

It is insufficient for a habeas petitioner to simply point to the state court record. See Adams, 897 F.2d at 333 (a "general reference to the transcripts, case records and briefs on appeal patently fails to comply with Rule 2(c)."); see also Wilson v. Larkins, 2009 WL 2069696, at *2 n.3 (E.D. Mo. July 10, 2009) (finding § 2254 petition failed to comply with the specificity requirement of Rule 2(c) where it stated petitioner sought habeas relief on the grounds he raised in his direct appeal brief and in post-conviction proceedings). In the interests of justice, the Court will liberally construe the Petition and attempt to discern the grounds for relief Petitioner seeks to raise.

Grounds Raised

On June 28, 2018, Petitioner filed the instant Petition for habeas relief in federal court. (ECF No. 1.)² Respondent filed a response in opposition with supporting exhibits on August 28, 2018. (ECF No. 14). Petitioner filed a Reply to Show Cause Order in support of his Petition on September 6, 2018 (ECF No. 15). Respondent interprets Petitioner's Grounds One and Two, titled "Direct Appeal," and "Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District," as attempts "to raise the claims he raised in his direct appeal and his post-conviction appeal" (ECF No. 14 at 5) and its Response addresses those claims.

It is unclear whether Petitioner intended the two grounds labeled "Direct Appeal," and "Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District" to raise on federal habeas the claims Petitionerasserted on direct appeal and post-conviction appeal. Respondent fails to mention several factual allegations Petitioner includes in the "supporting facts" paragraph of the form § 2254 complaint that follows Ground One "Direct Appeal," only one of which was raised on direct appeal. In this paragraph, Petitioner wrote:

My fast speedy trial was violated. I filed 3-times on this documents included on this issue. My trial lawyer let an [sic] juror be on the panel after I done told him I had an altercation with him in front of TGI Friday 2010, downtown, failed to get documents, files, records from the St. Patrick Center, mental conditions.

(ECF No. 1 at 5.) The Court interprets these statements, read together with the Petition's descriptions of claims raised on direct appeal and post-conviction review, as raising the following grounds for federal habeas relief:³

(1) The trial court erred in denying Petitioner's motion to suppress identification and overruling the defense's objections to two witnesses' identification of Petitioner as the man who robbed the bank in a photographic and physical lineup; this violated Petitioner's due process rights because the lineups were impermissibly suggestive and tainted the witnesses' pretrial and in-court identifications;

(2) The trial court erred in denying Petitioner's motion to dismiss the indictment based on violation of his Sixth Amendment speedy trial rights;

(3) The trial court erred and violated Petitioner's due process rights by allowing the admission of evidence of prior bad acts, specifically that Petitioner was on probation or parole and confined in the St. Louis County Justice Center during the robbery investigation;

(4) Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to strike a biased juror from the panel; and

(5) Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a witness and obtain documents, files, and records (sign-in sheets) from the St. Patrick Center to support Petitioner's alibi defense.

The Court finds the Petition does not assert sufficient specific facts to raise a ground for habeas relief based on Petitioner's mental condition.⁴

In Ground Two "Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District," Petitioner wrote in the accompanying "supporting facts" paragraph:

All of the facts I been mentioning in all of my claims. I am a petty thief! There's nothing violent on my record. Just all stealing. I'm not a prior offender. This is the only alleged robbery I ever had. So how could I get 30 years?? That is not right. I am an [sic] persistent offender on those stealing cases. There's no way Ishould have gotten 30 years! There are guys with worse and several cases than me and gotten less time.

(ECF No. 1 at 6-7.)

This statement does not allege sufficient specific facts to raise a ground for federal habeas relief. In the supplement to the Petition titled "Afterthoughts," however, Petitioner states that his 30-year sentence is "grossly disproportionate to the crime" and that he is "contending that the sentence violated a constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment." (ECF No. 1-1 at 23.) Liberally interpreted, the Court finds Ground Two raises the following ground for federal habeas relief:

(6) Petitioner's 30-year sentence for robbery as a persistent offender constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.⁵

Because the Court determines that Petitioner's claims do not warrant habeas relief on their face, it will deny the Petition without an evidentiary hearing.⁶

Factual Background

The post-conviction motion court described the facts of Petitioner's criminal case and post-conviction claims as follows:

The evidence at movant's trial was that on February 1, 2011, before noon, [a] man came into a bank on Olive in the City of St. Louis with his face partially covered by a hood. The man approached a teller's window and threw a bag on the counter. There was a note on the bag stating it was a robbery and the teller had two seconds to comply. The teller grabbed bills (at least one thousand dollars) and stuffed them into the bag. The man then took the bag and left. An employee at an adjacent window pushed [a] "panic alarm." The victim teller provided the police with a description of the robber, a photo display was created using a computerprogram, and both bank employees who had seen the robber identified movant. Both employees also later identified movant in a physical lineup.

Movant was represented at his trial by Paul Yarns. Mr. Yarns testified at the hearing that he took the case over from the Public Defender's Office several months prior to the trial. Mr. Yarns said the public defenders had done a "pretty substantial" investigation, and he relied on their work.

Mr. Yarns discussed possible defense with movant, including an alibi and a reasonable doubt defense. Movant's possible alibi was that he had been at the St. Patrick's Center at the time of the robbery, which was a short distance from the bank. An investigator for the Public Defender's Office had gone to the St. Patrick's Center but there was nobody who could remember movant being at the Center at the time of the robbery. It was decided that the defense strategy at trial would be to try to raise reasonable doubt. Mr. Yarns

...