Wilson v. Steele

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that United States Magistrate Judge John M. Bodenhausen's report and recommendation is adopted and sustained in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner Van Wilson's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. A separate judgment in accordance with this Memorandum and Order is entered this same date. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 3/31/17. (KXS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
VAN D. WIILSON,
Petitioner,
v.
JASON LEWIS,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:14 CV 72 RWS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before me on Petitioner Van Wilson’s petition for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2254. I referred this matter to United States
Magistrate Judge John M. Bodenhausen for a report and recommendation on all
dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b). The magistrate judge
submitted his recommendation that Wilson’s habeas petition should be denied.
Wilson has filed objections to the magistrate judge=s report. I have conducted a de
novo review of Wilson’s claims and have carefully reviewed the record in this
case. Based on that review, I agree with the magistrate judge that Wilson’s
petition should be denied.
Wilson was convicted of first degree murder and armed criminal action. He
was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole on his first degree murder
conviction and a consecutive life sentence for his armed criminal action
conviction. Wilson’s conviction was based on evidence at trial that Wilson beat an

acquaintance with a tree branch and then shot the victim in the head.
In his habeas petition Wilson raises twenty-five grounds for relief. In his
report and recommendation, the magistrate judge found that the vast majority of
Wilson’s grounds for relief were procedurally defaulted. However, the magistrate
judge reviewed all of Wilson’s grounds on the merits. He concluded that Wilson is
not entitled to habeas relief on any of the grounds.
I have reviewed Wilson’s objections to the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation and I have reviewed the record in this case. I agree with the
magistrate judge’s thorough and correct analysis of Wilson’s grounds for relief. I
find that Wilson is not entitled to habeas relief on any of the grounds raised in his
petition. As a result, I will adopt the report and recommendation of the magistrate
judge and deny Wilson’s petition.
Certificate of Appealability
I have considered whether to issue a certificate of appealability in this
matter. To grant a certificate of appealability, I must find a substantial showing of
the denial of a federal constitutional right. See Tiedeman v. Benson, 122 F.3d 518,
522 (8th Cir. 1997). A substantial showing is a showing that issues are debatable
among reasonable jurists, a court could resolve the issues differently, or the issues
deserve further proceedings. Cox v. Norris, 133 F.3d 565, 569 (8th Cir. 1997)
(citing Flieger v. Delo, 16 F.3d 878, 882-83 (8th Cir. 1994).
I believe that Wilson has not made such a showing on the grounds raised in
his petition. Therefore, I will not issue a certificate of appealability.
2

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that United States Magistrate Judge John M.
Bodenhausen =s report and recommendation is adopted and sustained in its entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner Van Wilson’s Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of
appealability.
A separate judgment in accordance with this Memorandum and Order is
entered this same date.

_________________________________
RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 31st day of March, 2017.

3