Brown v. Russell

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. 11 ) is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 3/27/15. (ARL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

DERAUGHN BROWN,
Petitioner,
v.
TROY STEELE1,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:13-cv-01515-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Deraughn Brown’s Motion for Evidentiary
Hearing (Doc. 11). On August 1, 2013, Petitioner filed the current habeas petition pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 raising the following two grounds for relief: (1) Plea Counsel was ineffective in
failing to adequately explain a meritorious defense available to him and (2) Plea Counsel was
ineffective in failing to interview key witnesses who would have aided his defense (Doc. 1 at 5).
Petitioner thereafter supplemented his original petition, indicating that his grounds were
procedurally defaulted but that he could demonstrate cause for the default because his postconviction counsel was ineffective for failing to raise these claims (Doc. 5). Petitioner requests a
hearing to ensure that he has a full and fair opportunity to develop his claims to prove his burden
in light of Martinez. 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012). Upon consideration, Petitioner’s motion will be
denied without prejudice.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2), a federal district court may not grant an evidentiary
1

Petitioner is currently incarcerated at Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and Correctional Center
(“ERDCC”) in Bonne Terre, Missouri. Troy Steele is the current Warden and proper party
respondent. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Rule 2(a).

hearing unless “the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court
proceedings . . . [and] the claim relies on a factual predicate that could not have been previously
discovered through the exercise of due diligence; and [] the facts underlying the claim would be
sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for constitutional error, no
reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.” An
evidentiary hearing is not necessary when the merits of petitioner's claims may be resolved based
on the state court record. McCann v. Armontrout, 973 F.2d 655, 658-59 (8th Cir. 1992). At this
stage of the litigation, it appears that the state court record contains sufficient facts to make an
informed decision on the merits of petitioner’s claims.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. 11) is
DENIED without prejudice.
Dated this 27th day of March, 2015.

_________________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-