Hellems v. Norman

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 4 2 : ORDERED that petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 2] is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability.. Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 11/13/12. (CEL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ONEY HELLEMS,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFF NORMAN,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:12-CV-1967-JCH

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court is required to promptly review the petition
and dismiss it if it appears from the face of the petition that petitioner is not entitled to
relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 4. Upon review, the Court finds that the petition must
be summarily dismissed.
Petitioner pled guilty to Second Degree Robbery. On November 13, 2007, the
state court sentenced petitioner to 20 years’ imprisonment. During sentencing, the
court found petitioner to be a “prior and persistent offender” under Missouri law, and
petitioner’s sentenced was enhanced accordingly.
Petitioner’s sole ground for relief is that the state court erred in finding him to
be a prior and persistent offender because the prosecutor failed to present the properly
certified documents demonstrating his prior convictions.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), a district court may entertain a petition for writ of
habeas corpus only if the petitioner “is in custody in violation of the Constitution or
laws or treaties of the United States.” “[I]t is not the province of a federal habeas court
to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions. 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,
67-68 (1991); see Poe v. Caspari, 39 F.3d 204, 207 (8th Cir. 1994) (“Jurisdiction is no
exception to the general rule that federal courts will not engage in collateral review of
state court decisions based on state law.”); Watts v. Bonneville, 879 F.2d 685, 687
(9th Cir. 1989) (alleged violation of state sentencing statute not cognizable in federal
habeas proceedings). Whether petitioner was properly sentenced as a prior and
persistent offender is purely a matter of state law and is non-cognizable in federal
habeas proceedings. As a result, the petition will be summarily dismissed.
Furthermore, petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of
a constitutional right, which requires a demonstration “that jurists of reason would find
it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional
right.” Khaimov v. Crist, 297 F.3d 783, 785 (8th Cir. 2002) (quotation omitted). Thus,
the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
Accordingly,
-2-

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis [Doc. 2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 4.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of
counsel is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of
appealability.
Dated this 13th

day of November, 2012.

/s/Jean C. Hamilton
JEAN C. HAMILTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-