White v. Reddington

1

YANCEY L. WHITE, Petitioner, v. DAN REDDINGTON, Respondent.

No. 2:20-CV-00018-AGF

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Northern Division

March 28, 2023

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

AUDREY G. FLEISSIG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the pro se petition of Missouri state prisoner Yancey L. White for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.^[1] In January 2011, Petitioner was convicted by a jury of three counts of first-degree robbery and three counts of armed criminal action. Petitioner was sentenced to sixteen years on each count of first-degree robbery and three years on each count of armed criminal actions all sentences to be served concurrently.

In his federal habeas petition, Petitioner asserts twenty-three grounds for relief for ineffective assistance of counsel and sixth amendment constitutional violations. Respondent argues that most of Petitioner's claims have been procedurally defaulted, and those that were properly preserved for federal habeas review should be denied because the state court's adjudication was reasonable. For the reasons set forth below habeas relief will be denied.

BACKGROUND

The pertinent facts, as summarized by the Missouri Court of Appeals in Petitioner's direct appeal, state the following:

During the three-day period of February 3-5, 2010, Melissa Craft, Matthew Patterson, and Ada Brooks were the victims of three separate robberies in the City of St. Louis. Police officers' investigations into those robberies eventually focused on [Petitioner]. After obtaining a photograph of [Petitioner], Detective Steven Ortbals of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department prepared a photographic lineup containing [Petitioner's] photograph and three others. On February 7, 2010, Detective Ortbals showed the photographic lineup to Patterson. Patterson immediately identified [Petitioner] as the perpetrator of his robbery with "99.9 percent" certainty. Detective Ortbals also showed a copy of the same photographic spread to Brooks, who also identified [Petitioner] as the man who robbed her.

Detective Ortbals placed a "wanted" for [Petitioner] in the Regional Justice Information Services (REJIS) database. On February 9, 2010, officers from the St Louis Metropolitan Police Department "most violent offenders unit" arrested [Petitioner] in Pine Lawn Missouri. Police officers brought [Petitioner] to a stationhouse in St. Louis, where Detective Ortbals spoke with him briefly before [Petitioner] requested a public defender. Detective Ortbals informed [Petitioner] that the police officers wanted him to participate in a lineup, but [Petitioner] refused without an attorney present. When Detective Ortbals contacted the public defender's office the public defender's office informed them that it would not represent [Petitioner] until the State filed formal charges against him. Detective Ortbals relayed this information to [Petitioner] and asked him if he wished to contact a private attorney. [Petitioner] stated that he did not have private counsel. Detective Ortbals also contacted the Circuit Attorney's office, which informed him that it would not formally charge [Petitioner] prior to a lineup.

[Petitioner] continued to refuse to participate in the lineup, went "limp noodle," and police officers dragged him into the lineup room. Once inside, [Petitioner] refused to stand in position, and two police officers had to hold him up. An officer also physically turned [Petitioner's] face towards the oneway mirror.

Both Patterson and Brooks viewed the lineup from behind a one-way mirror. At the time that Patterson viewed the lineup, [Petitioner] was on his knees. Police officers held [Petitioner] in place. Patterson identified [Petitioner] as the perpetrator. When Brooks first viewed the lineup, [Petitioner] was standing upright. After she identified [Petitioner] he began "scooting all down," and police officers had to hold him up. Brooks identified [Petitioner] as the man who robbed her "within three seconds."

Melissa Craft did not view the physical lineup, but an officer showed Craft a six-person photographic lineup on February 10, 2010. Craft quickly identified [Petitioner] as the man who robbed her.

The State charged [Petitioner] with one count of first-degree robbery and one count of armed criminal action for each of the three victims, for a total of six counts.^[2]

Doc. No. 22-6.

Motion to Suppress

Prior to trial, Petitioner filed a motion to suppress all identification evidence from the photo and live line-ups arguing in part that the out-of-court identifications were inherently suggestive and conducive to mistaken identification.^[3] Pet'rs Mot. to Suppress Identification, Doc. No. 22-3 at 18. Specifically, trial counsel argued that the live physical lineup was improper because Petitioner was refused an attorney despite multiple requests; the prosecutor told police officers to put Petitioner in the line-up by any means necessary; and police officers physically forced Petitioner to participate in the line-up holding him in choke hold and physically forcing his face forward. Id.; see also Doc. No. 16-4 at 2. Trial counsel argued that Petitioner's equal protection and due process rights were violated by these law enforcement actions. Id.

The motion to suppress was heard by the trial court on January 3-4, 2011.^[4] Trial Tr., Doc. No. 22-1, at 23, 71. Petitioner's trial counsel called Detective Michael Strong, Detective Steven Ortbals, and Sergeant Thomas Lake, all of whom were involved with Petitioner's live line-up. The officers testified that prior to the live line-up, Petitioner requested an attorney. The officers called the public defenders' officer but were told that because Petitioner had not been formally charged by the circuit attorney, no lawyer could be sent out until after he was charged. See Id. at 26, 36. Petitioner was informed of this, and the officers asked Petitioner if he had private counsel that he would like to contact and Petitioner stated he did not. Id. Detective Ortbals then contacted the circuit attorney's office and advised them of the situation. Id. at 36. The circuit attorney advised Detective Ortbal that a physical line up was needed. Id. Petitioner refused to participate in the lineup and repeatedly requested an attorney. See id at 26. Detective Ortbal then contacted his lieutenant, who, in turn, contacted internal affairs. Id. at 36.

Detective Lake, a detective assigned to the Internal Affairs Division, testified that in response to the lieutenant's call he went to the St. Louis Justice Center where the officers were attempting to conduct the lineup . Id. at 28. He testified that his division is called,

not only to insure that the person that's refusing is treated fairly but that the officers use our policies and procedures in order to move forward and make sure that when if the person that is refusing to be in a lineup wants to make a complaint at a later date that we were there to witness the events that occurred.

Id. Upon arriving at the justice center, Detective Lake spoke with Petitioner. Id. at 27-28. He testified to the following regarding their conversation,

I explained to him that he could not refuse to be in a lineup, that the public defender's office was called, that they were not going to come, and, probably, the reason they weren't going to come was because he has not been charged, that the police can't charge him until we put him in a lineup.

So he has a good shot of possibly walking out of here if he just stands up in a lineup because if he's not picked out, they cannot arrest him, but if we have to physically hold him in that lineup, he may, probably, very well likely get picked out and then he will be booked and held over.

Id. at 28. Petitioner still refused to cooperate in a physical line up. Detective Lake instructed the officers to handcuff Petitioner behind his back, and once they were in the lineup room, instructed the other participants to hold their hands behind their backs to simulate the same. Id. He explained that prior to going into the lineup room, Petitioner went “limp noodle” and “refused to stand up or use his own muscles to stand.he basically, became like dead weight” and the had to physically drag Petitioner into the lineup room. Id. at 29-30.

Detective Strong and another detective, Detective Davis, were in the room with the line-up participants. Detective Strong testified that Petitioner was “very uncooperative” and “wouldn't stand up on his own.” Id. at 25. He explained that he and Detective Davis had to physically hold Petitioner up and turn his head toward the oneway mirror. Id. Detective Strong acknowledged that Detective Davis had placed an arm around Petitioner's head to hold him up because Petitioner kept purposefully going limp and falling to the ground, but denied Petitioner was in a headlock.^[5] Id. at 26-27.

Detective Ortbals testified that three witnesses-Mr. Patterson, Ms. Brooks, and Ms. Bowers-participated in the lineup identification. Id. at 36. Detective Ortbals informed the witnesses that there was a physical lineup with individuals that matched the descriptions the witnesses provided and that the subject may or may not be in the room. Id. Mr. Patterson and Ms. Brooks quickly identified Petitioner. Id. at 36-37. At the time Ms. Bowers viewed the lineup, Petitioner was not standing up. She asked if the officers could instruct him to stand up, but Petitioner refused. Detectives Strong and Davis attempted to bring Petitioner to a stand but struggled due to Petitioner's weight and resistance. Ms. Bowers chose not to make any identification because of the situation.^[6]Id. at 37.

Mr Patterson also testified at the motion to suppress hearing. He stated that prior to viewing...