Winfield v. Wallace
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -...IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's Objections are overruled. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge is sustained, adopted and incorporated herein. [ Doc. 23] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Kenneth Winfield's, a/k/a Kenneth Wenfeel, Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED. [Doc. 1] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED, with no further action to take place herein. An appropriate judgment will accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 10/26/2016. (MRC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
KENNETH WINFIELD, a/k/a
No. 4:15-CV-959 CAS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the federal habeas corpus petition of state prisoner
Kenneth Winfield, a/k/a Kenneth Wenfeel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This case was referred
to United States Magistrate Judge John M. Bodenhausen for report and recommendation on all
dispositive matters and for final disposition on all non-dispositive matters, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
The sole remaining claim in the habeas petition is Ground One, which asserts that there was
insufficient evidence to support petitioner’s convictions for Robbery in the first degree and Armed
Criminal Action. Petitioner challenges the State’s evidence as “based purely on eyewitness
testimony by the victims involved,” challenges the quality of the victims’ identifications, and asserts
that the “State had no other evidence tying Petitioner to either robbery.” Pet. at 5-6.
On June 2, 2016, Judge Bodenhausen filed a Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge which recommended that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied.
Petitioner filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, asserting that the
Magistrate Judge applied an “inadequate” standard of review and erred in concluding (1) that the
Missouri Court of Appeals reasonably determined the facts in this matter and that petitioner is not
entitled to relief; (2) that a Jackson v. Virginia1 analysis is not concerned with the quality of an
eyewitness identification; and (3) that the Magistrate Judge could not engage in an analysis “that
was concerned with the quality of the eyewitness identification of the Petitioner[.]” Objections at
2. In the Objections, petitioner insists that his claim is brought only under Jackson v. Virginia,
reiterates his criticisms as to the sufficiency and reliability of the eyewitness evidence against him,
and asserts for the first time that the pretrial identification procedures utilized by the police were
impermissibly suggestive. Id. at 3, 8.
The Court has conducted a thorough de novo review of the entire record of this matter,
including the underlying state court record, the parties’ briefing, the Report and Recommendation,
and petitioner’s Objections. After careful consideration following de novo review, the Court
concurs in the recommendation and reasoning of the Magistrate Judge and therefore will adopt the
Report and Recommendation and deny Winfield’s habeas petition.
Petitioner’s late assertion in his Objections that the pretrial identification procedures utilized
by the police were impermissibly suggestive is procedurally defaulted because petitioner did not
raise it on direct appeal in the state courts, and therefore this Court cannot considered it. “A
petitioner must present both the factual and legal premises of his claims to the state courts in order
to exhaust the claims properly.” Dansby v. Hobbs,766 F.3d 809, 823 (8th Cir. 2014) (internal
quotation marks and quoted case omitted). “The legal aspect of this requirement is satisfied if the
petitioner’s argument to the state court refers to a specific federal constitutional right, a particular
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1978) (relevant question on federal habeas
review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction “is whether, after viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found
the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”).
constitutional provision, a federal constitutional case, or a state case raising a pertinent federal
constitutional issue.” Id. (internal quotation marks, brackets and quoted case omitted).
On his direct appeal to the Missouri Court of Appeals, petitioner argued only that the trial
court erred in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal and for new trial because there was
insufficient evidence to sustain the convictions, as the victims’ eyewitness identifications were
faulty and there was no other evidence of his guilt. Petitioner did not raise before the state court the
legally distinct claim he now attempts to assert: that admission of the victims’ eyewitness
identifications into evidence violated his due process rights because the faulty identifications were
procured as a result of improperly suggestive police procedures.
“Where a defendant has procedurally defaulted a claim by failing to raise it on direct review,
the claim may be raised in habeas only if the defendant can first demonstrate either ‘cause’ and
actual ‘prejudice,’ or that he is ‘actually innocent[.]’” Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 622
(1998) (internal citations omitted). Petitioner has not attempted to meet either standard and
therefore the Court cannot address his newly asserted claim.
Further, the Eighth Circuit has held that a party may not offer new legal theories in
objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, when those arguments have not been
presented to the magistrate judge or addressed in the report and recommendation. “[W]hen a
magistrate judge is hearing a matter pursuant to his or her limited authority to make a recommended
disposition, a claimant must present all his claims squarely to the magistrate judge, . . . to preserve
them for review.’” Madol v. Dan Nelson Auto. Group, 372 F.3d 997, 1000 (8th Cir. 2004) (internal
quotation marks and quoted case omitted). “A party cannot, in his objections to [a Report and
Recommendation], raise arguments that were not clearly presented to the magistrate judge.”
Ridenour v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms., Inc., 679 F.3d 1062, 1067 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoted case
omitted) (party waived claim where it was not presented to the magistrate judge, and district court
properly refused to consider it).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s Objections are overruled.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge is sustained, adopted and incorporated herein. [Doc. 23]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Kenneth Winfield’s, a/k/a Kenneth Wenfeel, Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED. [Doc. 1]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED, with no further action to
take place herein.
An appropriate judgment will accompany this Memorandum and Order.
CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 26th day of October, 2016.
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?