Morales v. Cassady
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioners Application for Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. [Doc. 13 .] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioners Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal is GRANTED. [Doc. 14 .] Signed by Magistrate Judge Nannette A. Baker on 10/27/17. (JAB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
Case No. 4:14-CV-943 NAB
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This closed matter is before the Court on Petitioner Ricardo Morales’ Application for
Certificate of Appealability [Doc. 13.] and Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 14.]. The
Court will grant Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. [Doc. 14.]
The Court has previously stated that it will not issue a certificate of appealability on Petitioner’s
convictions for statutory sodomy in Counts I, VIII, X, and XIII for the reasons stated in the
Memorandum and Order of September 27, 2017. [Doc. 10.]
Petitioner’s understanding of the standard of review is not correct. On habeas review, the
district court is limited to deciding whether a claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state
court proceedings (1) resulted in a decision that is contrary to, or involved an unreasonable
application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court, or
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of
the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The standard of
review does not allow this Court to re-try Petitioner’s case.
Petitioner contends that this Court did not read the trial transcript, failed to read the
indictment, failed to apply the statutory case law in effect at the time of the conviction, did not
examine the record as to each count and apply the facts to each count at each location, and failed
to address additional concerns raised for the first time in the motion for certificate of
appealability. The Court carefully examined the sole issue on habeas review as presented by
Petitioner- whether the trial court erred in denying his motion for acquittal, because the State did
not present sufficient evidence of penetration of the victim’s sexual organ upon which a
reasonable jury could have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of statutory sodomy in
Counts I, VIII, X, and XIII. The new claims that Petitioner is asserting in the instant motion
were not before the Court.
The Court reviewed the entire record in this case and found that habeas relief was not
warranted, because Petitioner made no showing of denial of a constitutional right. [Docs. 10,
11.] “It is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state court determinations on
state law questions.” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 (1991). Therefore, the Court will deny
Petitioner’s Application for Certificate of Appealability.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Application for Certificate of
Appealability is DENIED. [Doc. 13.]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis on Appeal is GRANTED. [Doc. 14.]
Dated this 27th day of October, 2017.
/s/ Nannette A. Baker
NANNETTE A. BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?