United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-2714

___________

Joe F. Fuller, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Charles Megerman; Jay Nixon, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendants - Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: January 12, 1999

Filed: April 27, 1999

___________

Before LOKEN, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate Joe F. Fuller appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of

habeas corpus. Fuller was convicted of second degree burglary and sentenced as a

repeat offender to seven years in prison. The Missouri trial court denied Fuller’s

motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing, and the Missouri Court

of Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence and the denial of post-conviction

relief in an unpublished Order and Memorandum dated April 30, 1996. The district
1The HONORABLE D. BROOK BARTLETT, Chief Judge of the United States

District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

-2-

court1 denied without a hearing Fuller’s petition for federal habeas relief under 28

U.S.C. § 2254. Fuller appealed, and we granted a certificate of appealability on two

of the issues he seeks to raise on appeal. We now affirm. 

Fuller first argues that the trial court violated his Confrontation Clause rights

by limiting the cross-examination of police officer Lowell Fundom. Fundom

discovered Fuller and two others loading tools into a pick-up truck parked in front of

an auto salvage business at 3:00 in the morning. The trial court precluded Fuller from

examining Fundom about his recent demotion from sergeant to patrol officer. Fuller

argues he was prejudiced by not being allowed to attack officer Fundom’s credibility

and bias. The Missouri Court of Appeals rejected this claim because, “Fuller’s offer

of proof indicated that the departmental charges against officer Fundom related to the

possibly unauthorized procurement of a dog for the police canine unit, charges which

Fundom claimed were untrue and unproven. There charges simply do not establish

any bias on the part of officer Fundom.” Giving the state court’s findings and

conclusions the deference to which they are entitled, the district court denied relief

on this ground. After careful review of the state court record, we agree. “[T]rial

judges retain wide latitude insofar as the Confrontation Clause is concerned to impose

reasonable limits on such cross-examination.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S.

673, 679 (1986).

Fuller next argues that his trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective

assistance by failing to impeach officer Fundom with an alleged inconsistency

between the officer’s police report and his trial testimony. The Missouri Court of

Appeals concluded that Fuller failed to prove the requisite prejudice because it is

questionable whether the two statements are inconsistent, counsel did cross-examine

Fundom about another alleged inconsistency between his police report and trial
-3-

testimony, the alleged inconsistency did not involve a disputed fact, and the evidence

against Fuller was overwhelming. The district court agreed that Fuller cannot satisfy

the prejudice requirement of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984).

Again, after careful review of the state court record, we agree.

We have also received and reviewed Fuller’s pro se supplemental brief on

appeal. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.