Turner v. St. Francois County Court

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 4/10/14. (JWD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
SAMUEL T. TURNER,
Petitioner,

ST. FRANCOIS COUNTY COURT,
Respondent,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:14CV718 ACL

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on petitioner‟s petition for writ of habeas corpus. Because
it is apparent on the face of the petition that petitioner is not entitled to relief, the Court will
dismiss it without further proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 4.
On March 2, 2007, petitioner pled guilty to one count of second degree assault in
violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.060. Missouri v. Turner, No. 06SF-CR00037 (St. Francois
County). On the same day, the court sentenced petitioner to a one year prison sentence with
credit for time served. Id. Petitioner did not appeal. In the instant petition, petitioner seeks to
challenge the judgment on the grounds that his counsel was ineffective.
Petitioner is currently incarcerated at USP Springfield Medical Center on an unrelated
conviction. See United States v. Turner, 1:09CR184 SNLJ (E.D. Mo.).
The federal habeas statute gives the United States district courts jurisdiction to entertain
petitions for habeas relief only from persons who are “in custody in violation of the Constitution
or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) (emphasis added); see also 28
U.S.C. § 2254(a). A habeas petitioner is not “„in custody‟ under a conviction when the sentence
imposed for that conviction has fully expired at the time his petition is filed.” Maleng v. Cook,

490 U.S. 488, 491 (1989) (emphasis in original). Petitioner‟s state sentence is fully expired. As
a result, the Court no longer has jurisdiction to hear a challenge to the sentence, and the Court
will dismiss the petition without further proceedings.
Finally, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that jurists of reason would find it debatable
whether he is in custody. Thus, the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
' 2253(c).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability.
An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately.
Dated this 10th day of April, 2014.

RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2