Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/101/588/595982/
Timestamp: 2020-03-29 21:54:47
Document Index: 2758546

Matched Legal Cases: ['art, 979', '§ 2241', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 552', 'art, 4', 'art, 839', 'art, 701', 'art, 65']

Samuel Lee Mcdonald, Appellant, v. Michael Bowersox, Appellee, 101 F.3d 588 (8th Cir. 1997) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Eighth Circuit › 1997 › Samuel Lee Mcdonald, Appellant, v. Michael Bowersox, Appellee
Samuel Lee Mcdonald, Appellant, v. Michael Bowersox, Appellee, 101 F.3d 588 (8th Cir. 1997)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit - 101 F.3d 588 (8th Cir. 1997) Submitted Sept. 9, 1996. Decided Dec. 2, 1996. Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc Denied Jan. 23, 1997
McDonald was convicted by a jury of having killed Jordan, an off-duty police officer, "for the purpose of receiving money or any other thing of monetary value...." State v. McDonald, 661 S.W.2d 497, 500 (Mo.1983) (en banc) (McDonald I), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1009, 105 S. Ct. 1875, 85 L. Ed. 2d 168 (1985). The jury sentenced McDonald to death and the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed both the conviction and the sentence. Id.
McDonald filed a pro se motion in Missouri state court for postconviction relief and for an evidentiary hearing, pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 27.26. After counsel was appointed and amended motions were filed, a four-day evidentiary hearing was held in October 1986. A Missouri state court denied McDonald's motion for postconviction relief on January 20, 1987. See McDonald v. State, 758 S.W.2d 101, 103 (Mo.Ct.App.1988) (McDonald II) . The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that decision. Id.
In 1989, McDonald filed pro se his first petition for federal habeas corpus relief. He filed an amended petition in 1990 and requested an evidentiary hearing in 1991. The district court granted the motion for an evidentiary hearing on December 1, 1992. McDonald v. Delo, 897 F. Supp. 1224, 1235 (E.D. Mo. 1995) (McDonald III) . However, the district court subsequently vacated that order and entered a judgment denying habeas relief in 1995. See id. at 1236. In a thirty page opinion, the district court addressed McDonald's fifty-plus claims, many of which the district court found to be procedurally barred. McDonald now appeals the district court's decision to deny McDonald an evidentiary hearing as well as seven of the claims rejected by the district court.
We review the district court's findings of fact for clear error, Fairchild v. Lockhart, 979 F.2d 636, 639 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 509 U.S. 928, 113 S. Ct. 3051, 125 L. Ed. 2d 735 (1993), and we review the district court's conclusions of law de novo. Hendrix v. Norris, 81 F.3d 805, 807 (8th Cir. 1996). "In conducting habeas review, a federal court is limited to deciding whether a conviction violated the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68, 112 S. Ct. 475, 480, 116 L. Ed. 2d 385 (1991) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2241). Accordingly, " [a] federal court may not re-examine a state court's interpretation and application of state law." Schleeper v. Groose, 36 F.3d 735, 737 (8th Cir. 1994); see Estelle, 502 U.S. at 67-68, 112 S. Ct. at 480 (" [I]t is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions."). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (1994), we presume state court findings of fact to be correct in habeas proceedings unless the petitioner establishes, the respondent admits, or the record shows otherwise or the petitioner produces evidence that convincingly establishes that the state court's findings were erroneous. See generally Thompson v. Keohane, --- U.S. ----, ---- - ----, 116 S. Ct. 457, 463-64, 133 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1995); see also Wayne v. Benson, 89 F.3d 530, 534 (8th Cir. 1996) (construing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)).2
We have held that in order for a habeas petitioner to be entitled to an evidentiary hearing in federal court, he must show "both [ (1) ] cause for his failure to adequately develop the facts material to his ineffective assistance claim in the postconviction state court hearing and [ (2) ] actual prejudice resulting therefrom; alternatively, petitioner must show that a fundamental miscarriage of justice would result from the denial of an evidentiary hearing in federal court." McCann v. Armontrout, 973 F.2d 655, 658 (8th Cir. 1992) (construing Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 10-12, 112 S. Ct. 1715, 1720-22, 118 L. Ed. 2d 318 (1992)), cert. denied, 507 U.S 942, 113 S. Ct. 1342, 122 L. Ed. 2d 724 (1993).
McDonald indicated to his counsel that he might have a mental disease or defect in January 1982. See McDonald II, 758 S.W.2d at 105. He made this claim after reading about Vietnam Stress Syndrome, which is also called Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. Id. By this time, McDonald's counsel had already started to pursue a claim of mental disease or defect as a defense strategy. McDonald's counsel had already filed a "Late Notice of Intent to Rely on the Defense of Mental Disease or Defect," id., presumably pursuant to Mo.Rev.Stat. § 552.030. The state court denied this motion because it was a nonstandard motion that, had it been granted, would have entitled the defense to keep the results of the psychiatric examination from the prosecution. Id. at 105 n. 2. In addition, by January 1982, McDonald's trial counsel had already filed three motions for the appointment of a psychiatrist, which had been denied. Id. at 105. These requests for psychiatric assistance were also denied because they were "not in conformity with statutory provisions." Id. This was presumably because the governing statute, Mo.Rev.Stat. § 552.030, did not allow for nondiscoverable psychiatric evaluations. See McDonald III, 897 F. Supp. at 1238.
The United States Supreme Court has held that a defendant is constitutionally entitled to the assistance of a psychiatric expert to help prepare his defense "when [he] has made a preliminary showing that his sanity at the time of the offense is likely to be a significant factor at trial...." Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 74, 105 S. Ct. 1087, 1091, 84 L. Ed. 2d 53 (1985). This entitlement also applies to the penalty phase of a trial. Id. at 84, 105 S. Ct. at 1096. However, to be entitled constitutionally to psychiatric assistance under Ake, McDonald had the burden to demonstrate to the state trial court "a reasonable probability that the requested expert would aid in the defendant's defense and that the denial of expert assistance would result in an unfair trial." Guinan v. Armontrout, 909 F.2d 1224, 1227 (8th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1074, 111 S. Ct. 800, 112 L. Ed. 2d 861 (1991).
Applying this standard to the facts before us, we conclude that McDonald failed to carry his burden. After reviewing the four motions for psychiatric assistance filed by McDonald's trial counsel, we agree with the district court's finding that McDonald's trial counsel never demonstrated to the state trial court that there existed a reasonable probability that an expert would aid in McDonald's defense or that denying the expert assistance would result in an unfair trial. See McDonald III, 897 F. Supp. at 1237-38. Although McDonald's trial counsel repeatedly asserted that psychiatric expertise was needed to help her decide whether to mount a defense of mental disease or defect, this mere assertion does not satisfy the showing required by Ake.
McDonald also asserts that he was entitled to a psychiatric evaluation under Missouri state law. Under Missouri state procedural law, a defendant is automatically entitled to a mental evaluation when he files a plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect or when he files a timely notice of his intent to rely on a mental defect defense. Mo.Rev.Stat. § 552.030 (1981). McDonald never pled not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect and the Missouri Supreme Court specifically found that, as a matter of Missouri state law, McDonald's counsel did not properly file a motion informing the court of an intent to rely on an insanity defense. McDonald I, 661 S.W.2d at 501. Although McDonald filed a Late Notice of Intent to Rely on a Defense of Mental Disease or Defect, the Missouri Court of Appeals found that this motion "was a nonstandard motion that omit [ted] the phrase 'the defense hereby gives notice of intent to rely upon mental disease or defect as a defense.' " McDonald II, 758 S.W.2d at 105 n. 2.3 Thus, according to the Missouri Court of Appeals and the Missouri Supreme Court, McDonald's trial counsel never filed a motion that triggered Missouri's obligation to provide McDonald with a psychiatric expert under Mo.Rev.Stat. § 552.030.
We are bound by the state courts' interpretation of state law in federal habeas proceedings unless a defendant's conviction violates the United States Constitution or federal law. Estelle, 502 U.S. at 67-68, 112 S. Ct. at 479-80.4 Because we can see no constitutional violation resulting from the Missouri Supreme Court's interpretation of Missouri state law, we are bound by the state court's holding that McDonald was not entitled to the use of a psychiatric expert under state law.
To prevail on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, McDonald has the burden of showing (1) that his counsel's assistance fell below an objectively reasonable standard and (2) that he was prejudiced by his counsel's ineffective assistance. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984); Antwine v. Delo, 54 F.3d 1357, 1365 (8th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S. Ct. 753, 133 L. Ed. 2d 700 (1996). The claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is a mixed question of law and fact. Carter v. Hopkins, 92 F.3d 666, 669 (8th Cir. 1996). We review the district court's factual findings for clear error while reviewing its conclusions of law de novo. Id.
Moreover, with respect to the merits of McDonald's claim, the Missouri Court of Appeals also considered and rejected McDonald's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, detailing at length the reasons why " [c]ounsel did all that was possible based on the known facts." McDonald II, 758 S.W.2d at 105. We agree with the Missouri appellate court's conclusion that McDonald's trial counsel did not act unreasonably.
We may not grant a writ of habeas corpus based on the alleged misconduct of a state trial court unless the state trial court's behavior deprived a petitioner of a constitutional right such as due process. See Pickens v. Lockhart, 4 F.3d 1446, 1454 (8th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1170, 114 S. Ct. 1206, 127 L. Ed. 2d 553 (1994); see also Cooley v. Lockhart, 839 F.2d 431, 432 (8th Cir. 1988). To show a deprivation of due process, a petitioner must show that "the challenged error [was] gross, conspicuously prejudicial or of such import that the trial was fatally infected." Rhodes v. Foster, 682 F.2d 711, 714 (8th Cir. 1982); see also Culkin v. Purkett, 45 F.3d 1229, 1235 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S. Ct. 127, 133 L. Ed. 2d 76 (1995).
None of McDonald's claims of alleged trial court errors rise to the level of a due process violation. McDonald's first three objections--to the trial judge's admonitions about confidentiality, the trial judge's leaving the bench to investigate a courtroom disturbance, and the trial judge's asking defense counsel not to place an exhibit in a way that would block the defendant's view of the witnesses--are without merit. With respect to the judge's admonitions about confidentiality, the judge merely reminded a witness who had a preexisting duty of confidentiality that the witness must respect that duty. With respect to the second objection, the trial judge seems to have left the bench briefly only to investigate a minor courtroom disturbance. As for McDonald's third objection, the trial court spoke to defense counsel about the placement of a certain exhibit to insure that McDonald's view of the witnesses would not be obstructed. Certainly such an act is not improper, given that McDonald has a constitutional right to view the witnesses who testify against him. See Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1016, 108 S. Ct. 2798, 2800, 101 L. Ed. 2d 857 (1988). Indeed, each of these individual acts appear to have been proper exercises of judicial authority, and could not constitute any violation of due process, and certainly were not so grossly and conspicuously prejudicial or of such import that the trial was fatally infected.
The gravamen of McDonald's fourth through seventh objections concerns the admission of certain testimonial evidence. In a federal habeas petition, this Court may only review state evidentiary issues when " 'the asserted error infringed a specific constitutional protection or was so prejudicial as to deny due process.' " Griffin v. Delo, 33 F.3d 895, 904 (8th Cir. 1994) (quoting Wallace v. Lockhart, 701 F.2d 719, 724 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 934, 104 S. Ct. 340, 78 L. Ed. 2d 308 (1983)), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S. Ct. 1981, 131 L. Ed. 2d 869 (1995). After careful review of the record, we can find no specific constitutional protection that was violated nor can we see how any of the evidence challenged by McDonald so prejudiced him as to deny him due process.
Citing Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 105 S. Ct. 2633, 86 L. Ed. 2d 231 (1985), McDonald first asserts that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated when the prosecutor told the jurors that their decision to impose the death penalty would be reviewed many times to insure against mistakes. In Caldwell, the Supreme Court held that it is a violation of the Eighth Amendment "to rest a death sentence on a determination made by a sentencer who has been led to believe that the responsibility for determining the appropriateness of the defendant's death rests elsewhere." Id. at 328-29, 105 S. Ct. at 2639.
In a later case, however, the Supreme Court held that Caldwell is not to be applied retroactively. Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 229, 110 S. Ct. 2822, 2824, 111 L. Ed. 2d 193 (1990) (holding that Caldwell cannot serve as a basis for federal writs of habeas corpus for convictions made final before Caldwell was decided in 1985); see also Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 310, 109 S. Ct. 1060, 1075, 103 L. Ed. 2d 334 (1989) (generally, a petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus may not rely on a rule of constitutional law established after his conviction became final). Because McDonald's conviction became final in 1983, two years before Caldwell was decided, McDonald cannot rely on the Caldwell decision in seeking a writ of habeas corpus.
McDonald also asserts that various statements in the prosecutor's closing argument violated McDonald's right to due process. Having reviewed the prosecutor's closing argument in its entirety, we cannot say that McDonald was prejudiced by the prosecutor's argument. This is particularly so because it is uncontroverted that the jury was properly instructed not to consider the prosecutor's closing statement as evidence and, taking into account the violent nature of the crime McDonald committed, there is no reasonable probability that the outcome of the sentencing phase would have been different had the prosecutor not made his allegedly prejudicial remarks. See generally, Miller v. Lockhart, 65 F.3d 676, 682-85 (8th Cir. 1995) (discussing when a prosecutor's closing argument violates a defendant's due process).
McDonald argued to the district court below that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to have found the aggravating circumstance of committing an offense for the purpose of receiving money and that the state trial court therefore erred by failing to dismiss this aggravating circumstance. The district court held that McDonald was procedurally barred from bringing this claim. McDonald III, 897 F. Supp. at 1245. In the alternative, the district court held that this claim has no merit.9 Id. We agree that this claim is procedurally barred.
We will not consider a petitioner's claim to federal habeas relief if the habeas petitioner fails both (1) to exhaust his state remedies and (2) to preserve his claim for review according to state procedural rules. See Satter v. Leapley, 977 F.2d 1259, 1261-62 (8th Cir. 1992).
To avoid procedural default of a federal claim in state court, a petitioner must present his federal constitutional claim to the state courts, relying on "a specific federal constitutional right, a particular constitutional provision, a federal constitutional case, or a state case raising a pertinent federal constitutional issue...." Kelly v. Trickey, 844 F.2d 557, 558 (8th Cir. 1988) (internal quotations omitted); see Myre v. Iowa, 53 F.3d 199, 200 (8th Cir. 1995). A petitioner who presents a state law claim in state court will avoid procedural default with respect to a federal claim if "the claim the petitioner made in state court is synonymous with an accepted principle of federal law." Myre, 53 F.3d at 201 (interpreting Satter, 977 F.2d at 1262, which holds that a petitioner necessarily raises a due process challenge to the conviction if the petitioner challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to convict in a state proceeding). We have recognized that, although it is possible to raise a state law claim that is so closely related to a federal constitutional claim as to be synonymous, it is equally possible to raise a state law claim that rests solely on state law principles. See Myre, 53 F.3d at 201. Similarly, the Supreme Court has "indicated that it is not enough to make a general appeal to a constitutional guarantee as broad as due process to present the 'substance' of such a claim to a state court." Gray v. Netherland, --- U.S. ----, ----, 116 S. Ct. 2074, 2081, 135 L. Ed. 2d 457 (1996).
McDonald can only overcome this procedural bar to our review of his due process claim if he can make a showing of cause for the procedural default and prejudice resulting from the alleged constitutional violation, or "that a fundamental miscarriage of justice would otherwise result because he is actually innocent of capital murder or the death penalty." Zeitvogel v. Delo, 84 F.3d 276, 279 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S. Ct. 368, 136 L. Ed. 2d 258 (1996); see also Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750, 111 S. Ct. 2546, 2565, 115 L. Ed. 2d 640 (1991). McDonald has not attempted to make a showing of cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice, nor do we see any basis in the record before us for such a showing.
The Missouri Supreme Court specifically addressed McDonald's insufficiency of the evidence claim with respect to deliberation. The court construed a "deliberate act" to be "one performed in a cool and deliberate state of mind" and specifically noted that " [n]o particular [length of] time is required to permit a finding of deliberation." McDonald I, 661 S.W.2d at 501. Applying this standard, the Missouri Supreme Court held that a jury could have found that McDonald acted with deliberation when he killed Jordan. Id.
The United States Supreme Court has held that a writ of habeas corpus based on a claim of insufficiency of the evidence will be granted only if "it is found that upon the record evidence adduced at the trial no rational trier of fact could have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2791-92, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979); see Rhode v. Olk-Long, 84 F.3d 284, 288 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S. Ct. 232, 136 L. Ed. 2d 163 (1996). Moreover, we are bound by the Missouri Supreme Court's interpretation of the meaning of a deliberate act under Missouri law. See Estelle, 502 U.S. at 67-68, 112 S. Ct. at 479-80; Schleeper, 36 F.3d at 737. The record shows that McDonald wounded Jordan, took his wallet, started to turn away, and only then turned around to fire the shot that killed Jordan. McDonald I, 661 S.W.2d at 501. Based on this evidence, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found proof of deliberation beyond a reasonable doubt.
Pointing to the word "unanimously," McDonald argues that this instruction prevented the jury from considering all mitigating circumstances and thereby violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He points to Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367, 108 S. Ct. 1860, 100 L. Ed. 2d 384 (1988), in which the United States Supreme Court found unconstitutional jury instructions that led the jury to believe that they could only return a verdict of life imprisonment if they unanimously agreed to the specific factors they would consider to be mitigating. Id. at 384, 108 S. Ct. at 1870; see also McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433, 439, 110 S. Ct. 1227, 1231, 108 L. Ed. 2d 369 (1990) (reiterating the concern that one holdout juror should not be able to prevent the other jurors from considering mitigating evidence).
McDonald's Mills claim fails on the merits. This case is factually almost identical to Griffin v. Delo, 33 F.3d 895 (8th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S. Ct. 1981, 131 L. Ed. 2d 869 (1995). In Griffin, the defendant challenged a jury instruction identical to jury instruction number thirty in the instant case. Compare Griffin, 33 F.3d at 905 (jury instruction number twenty-two), with II J.A. at 523 (jury instruction number thirty). The jury instruction challenged by Griffin was followed immediately by a jury instruction that read as follows:
Certain provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996), amend the federal statutory law of habeas petitions. We have not yet determined the extent to which these amendments apply to pending habeas petitions in capital cases, nor do we need to answer this question here. Cf. Oliver v. Wood, 96 F.3d 1106, 1108 n. 2 (8th Cir. 1996) ("We have not yet determined to what extent the new [Antiterrorism] Act applies to noncapital cases pending on appeal."); Rehbein v. Clarke, 94 F.3d 478, 481 n. 4 (8th Cir. 1996) ("The new [Antiterrorism] Act makes substantive and procedural changes which could conceivably affect our review of this [noncapital] case.... Because [the petitioner's] petition would fail under any plausible application of the new Act as well as under prior law, however, we need not determine whether the new Act applies to this appeal.")
For example, a state court's arbitrary application of its own procedural rules may be just such an exception. See Mack v. Caspari, 92 F.3d 637, 640 (8th Cir. 1996) (" [A] contention that a state court has applied a procedural rule arbitrarily to a defendant's prejudice may state a federal constitutional due process violation...."). McDonald has made no such allegation of arbitrariness
McDonald's military records stated that he did not suffer from a mental deficiency. McDonald III, 897 F. Supp. at 1238. Furthermore, at oral argument for this appeal, McDonald's counsel conceded that neither McDonald's mother nor his wife would have been able to testify that McDonald suffered from a mental disease or defect. Also, prior to the shooting of Jordan, McDonald had been arrested four times. He had not relied on a defense of mental disease or defect on any of those four occasions. McDonald's state trial attorney had previously been McDonald's defense counsel for at least one of these prior felonies and thus was well aware that McDonald had previously defended himself without relying on a defense of mental disease or defect
McDonald also argues that he should be granted the writ because of the cumulative effect of this misconduct. However, we may not grant a writ of habeas corpus based on a claim of cumulative effect. Byrd v. Armontrout, 880 F.2d 1, 11 (8th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1019, 110 S. Ct. 1326, 108 L. Ed. 2d 501 (1990) ("Because each claim of constitutional deprivation must stand on its own, we reject this [cumulative effect] claim as well." (internal citations and quotations omitted))
The district court also held, in the alternative, that this claim could not be the basis for granting a writ of habeas corpus because the United States Supreme Court only recognized insufficiency of evidence as a cognizable ground for habeas relief in 1990. McDonald III, 897 F. Supp. at 1245 (citing Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 778-79, 110 S. Ct. 3092, 3101-02, 111 L. Ed. 2d 606 (1990)). Because McDonald's conviction became final before 1990, the principles enunciated in Teague, 489 U.S. at 310-11, 109 S. Ct. at 1075-76, may bar the retroactive application of this ruling to McDonald's case. We need not decide this question here and accordingly decline to do so
Moreover, McDonald is procedurally barred from bringing his Mills claim before us because he did not present this claim in state court. See Zeitvogel, 84 F.3d at 279 (holding that a petitioner who failed to present his federal constitutional claim for habeas relief, and the facts supporting it, in state court is procedurally barred from doing so before the federal court). A petitioner may overcome the procedural bar if he can "demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law, or demonstrate that the failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice." Coleman, 501 U.S. at 750, 111 S. Ct. at 2565; see also Zeitvogel, 84 F.3d at 279
McDonald proffers novelty as the cause of his procedural default. He points out that his Mills claim did not exist at the time McDonald was petitioning the state courts. We have previously rejected this argument. See Stokes v. Armontrout, 893 F.2d 152, 155-56 (8th Cir. 1989) (holding that although novel constitutional principles may sometimes suffice to show prejudice and cause, Mills-type claims are not novel).
McDonald's argument is not convincing. The challenged jury instruction is not far from an ideal Mills instruction. Here, although the word "unanimously" was used, it was not stressed in such a way that made it probable that reasonable jurors would believe that they "were precluded from considering any mitigating evidence unless all 12 jurors agreed on the existence of a particular such circumstance." Mills, 486 U.S. at 384, 108 S. Ct. at 1870.