West v. Russell

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent's motion to alter or amend the judgment (Doc. 26 ) is GRANTED. The Judgment Order issued on August 11, 2017 (Doc. 24 ) is vacated. The c ourt will hold an evidentiary hearing limited to the representations made by petitioner]s plea counsel to petitioner. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent's motion for an extension of time (Doc. 27 ) is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a scheduling conference of the court with counsel for all parties is set for October 24, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. Signed by Magistrate Judge David D. Noce on 9/21/2017. (CLO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JACOB B. WEST,
Petitioner,
v.
TROY STEELE,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:15 CV 45 DDN

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GRANTING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT
This action is before the court on respondent’s motion to alter or amend the
judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which was filed on the twentyeighth day following the entry of the Judgment Order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (prescribing
28 days for the filing of motion). Rule 59(e) authorizes the court to correct its mistakes
"in the period immediately following the entry of judgment." Turner v. Cassady, 2017
WL 878033, at *2 (E. D. Mo. 2017) (quoting White v. N. H. Dep't of Employment Sec.,
455 U.S. 445, 450 (1982). Respondent argues that the court’s decision is premised on
manifest errors and that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be denied.
First, respondent asserts that the state court determined the petitioner’s plea
counsel informed petitioner of the availability of lesser-included offenses. (Doc. 26)
(citing Doc. 7 at 11-13). Respondent argues this court should have given deference to
this state court conclusion. However, all the state courts determined as a matter of fact
was that petitioner “understood his right to present a defense.” (Doc. 26, Ex. D at 7).
The Missouri Court of Appeals held as a matter of law that “[t]he possibility of
conviction of an offense less than first-degree assault neither is beyond the realm of
knowledge of a lay person nor requires a level of specialized knowledge.” (Id.) (citations
omitted). The state courts made no finding that West was or was not informed of lesser-

included offenses or the elements of the offenses; the state courts instead held that, as a
matter of law, such findings are not required, because a lay person should know about
lesser-included offenses.
This court’s decision defers to the state court’s factual findings, namely, that
petitioner testified he understood his right to present a defense, but holds that the state
court’s legal determination is contrary to Supreme Court precedent in Henderson v.
Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 645-47 (1976) (holding that a lay person would not know about
the elements of a crime or the differences between charged and lesser-included crimes).
However, respondent’s motion brings to light the evidentiary deficiencies of the
court’s decision.

Upon reconsideration, the court’s decision without an evidentiary

hearing was premature. Although petitioner’s claim is a legal one, had the state courts
followed Supreme Court precedent, further evidence would have been required to address
petitioner’s claims. Accordingly, consideration of the legal questions at issue cannot be
resolved by reference to the record before this court. Because the state courts did not
allow petitioner to present any evidence at an evidentiary hearing, petitioner may also
allege that there is no reasonable basis for the state court to deny relief, and, for the
reasons discussed in this court’s original decision (Doc. 23 at 5-8), the court will hold an
evidentiary hearing on petitioner’s claim. See Earp v. Oronski, 431 F.3d 1158, 1167 (9th
Cir. 2005).
As to respondent’s second argument, that the failure of petitioner’s counsel was
not prejudicial, respondent relies primarily on allegations, not facts determined by the
state court, and there are numerous contrary allegations to support a lesser finding of
intent. The court is persuaded that, based on the facts as found by the state courts, and
without reference to additional allegations, a failure of petitioner’s counsel to inform him
of the intent requirements of the charged crime and lesser-included offenses would be
prejudicial. The question is now only an evidentiary one: what information petitioner’s
defense counsel provided to him.
Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent’s motion to alter or amend the
judgment (Doc. 26) is GRANTED. The Judgment Order issued on August 11, 2017
(Doc. 24) is vacated.

The court will hold an evidentiary hearing limited to the

representations made by petitioner’s plea counsel to petitioner.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent’s motion for an extension of time
(Doc. 27) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a scheduling conference of the court with
counsel for all parties is set for October 24, 2017, at 10:00 a.m.

/s/ David D. Noce
k
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Signed on September 21, 2017.