Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03241/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03241-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ecclesiastes M.D. Matthews
Appellant
James Purkett
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The HONORABLE CAROL E. JACKSON, United States District Judge for

the Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3241

___________

Ecclesiastes M.D. Matthews, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

James Purkett, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: July 1, 2010

Filed: July 8, 2010

___________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ecclesiastes Matthews appeals the district court’s1

 judgment denying his 28

U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The district court granted a certificate of appealability on

Matthews’s venue-related ineffective-assistance claims. For the reasons that follow,

we affirm.

Matthews was charged in Marion County, Missouri, with two felony counts of

sale of a controlled substance. Prior to trial, he moved for a change of venue under

Appellate Case: 09-3241 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/08/2010 Entry ID: 3681478
-2-

Missouri Supreme Court Rule 32.03, which provides that a criminal defendant is

entitled upon timely request to a change of venue as a matter of right if charges are

brought in a county of 75,000 or fewer inhabitants. The trial court granted the motion,

but transferred the case to another district within the same county--from District 2 in

Hannibal to District 1 in Palmyra--instead of transferring the case to another county.

Matthews proceeded to trial, the Palmyra jury found him guilty after a trial that

included testimony of two confidential informants who wore recording devices while

they made controlled purchases of drugs from Matthews, and the trial court sentenced

Matthews as a prior drug offender to two consecutive 25-year prison terms. On direct

appeal, Matthews did not raise a change-of-venue issue, and the Missouri Court of

Appeals affirmed. See State v. Matthews, 99 S.W.3d 494 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003) (per

curiam). He then filed a state post-conviction petition, asserting in part that his

counsel had provided ineffective assistance by failing to object at trial and on direct

appeal to the trial court’s failure to transfer the case to a different county. The motion

court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, the Missouri Court of Appeals

reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on two issues, and the Missouri

Supreme Court granted transfer and affirmed. See Matthews v. State, 175 S.W.3d

110, 113-15 (Mo. 2005) (en banc) (concluding that, even though criminal trial court

had erred in failing to transfer Matthews’s case to different county, Matthews did not

plead facts showing prejudice stemming from his counsel’s failure to object to the

improper venue, and Rule 32.03 did not create presumption that defendant could not

receive fair trial in counties having 75,000 or fewer inhabitants). 

In this section 2254 petition, Matthews claimed, in relevant part, that his trial

counsel was ineffective for failing to object when the trial court transferred the case

within the same county, and his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise

on direct appeal the venue issue as plain error. A magistrate judge found that

Matthews’s venue-related claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel had

merit, but the district court, upon de novo review, sustained the State’s objection and

denied habeas relief. 

Appellate Case: 09-3241 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/08/2010 Entry ID: 3681478
-3-

We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions

of law de novo. See Flowers v. Norris, 585 F.3d 413, 416 (8th Cir. 2009), cert.

denied, 2010 WL 247112 (U.S. June 21, 2010) (No. 09-10582). If the issues raised

in the federal habeas petition have been adjudicated on the merits in a state court

proceeding, the petition must be denied unless the state court decision “resulted in a

decision contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established

Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or “resulted

in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of

the evidence presented in the state court proceedings.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d);

Flowers, 585 F.3d at 416. 

We agree with the district court that the Missouri Supreme Court’s adjudication

of Matthews’s venue-related ineffective-assistance claims was not contrary to, and did

not involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, and it was

not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. Contrary to Matthews’s

argument on appeal, his criminal trial counsel failed to preserve a venue objection

after the trial court granted his change-of-venue motion but improperly transferred the

case within the same county. Cf. State v. Bradshaw, 81 S.W.3d 14, 28 (Mo. Ct. App.

2002) (“A defendant’s failure to object to the action of the court in ordering a change

of venue acts to waive the defendant’s right to a particular venue.”). Matthews did not

plead or demonstrate he was prejudiced by his counsel’s waiver of the issue, and thus

his claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel fail. See

Witherspoonv. Purkett, 210 F.3d 901, 903 (8th Cir. 2000) (in order to establish

counsel was ineffective, habeas petitioner must demonstrate he suffered material

prejudice as result of counsel’s poor performance).

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3241 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/08/2010 Entry ID: 3681478