Sandknop v. Prudden

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. An Order of Dismissal will be filed forthwith. 1 2 . Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 5/15/17. (KKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER SANDKNOP,
Petitioner,

v.
DOUG PRUDDEN,
Respondent,

)
)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:17-CV-1498 ACL

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the petition of Christopher Sandknop for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The issue presented by petitioner is not cognizable
in federal habeas proceedings. As a result, this action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Background
Petitioner pied guilty to stealing property or services in excess of $500 but less than

Missouri v.

$25,000 in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 570.030.3 (2013), a Class C felony.

Sandknop, No. 12SL-CR10646-0l (St. Louis County). On July 12, 2013, the court sentenced

-

him to seven years' imprisonment but suspended the execution of the sentence and placed him
on supervised probation. Petitioner did not appeal the sentence, nor did he file a proper motion
for postconviction relief. On December 3, 2015, the court revoked petitioner's probation and
(

ordered him to serve his term of imprisonment. Petitioner did not appeal the revocation.
On February 28, 2017, petitioner filed a Rule 91 petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Snadknop v. Missouri, No. 17SL-CC00807 (St. Louis County) (petitioner's name misspelled on
court docket). In the petition, he argued that his sentence had been improperly enhanced from a
Class A felony to a Class C misdemeanor because the Missouri Supreme Court's ruling in

Missouri v. Bazel!, 497 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. bane 2016), invalidated all such enhancements under

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 570.030.3 (2013). The habeas court dismissed the petition on March 2, 2017,
for lack of jurisdiction.
Ground for relief

Petitioner brings one ground for relief. He argues that Bazel! invalidated his sentence
enhancement under § 570.030.3 (2013).
The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, agrees with petitioner that Bazel!
invalidated all of the sentence enhancements under the statue. Missouri v. Bowen, ---S.W.3d---,
2017 WL 361185 (Mo. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2017). In Bowen, the court held that the enhancement
for stealing in excess of $500 could no longer be applied. Id. at *2 (citing cases).
Discussion

"[I]t is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations
on state-law questions. In conducting habeas review, a federal court is limited to deciding
whether a conviction violated the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." Estelle v.
McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991); see Poe v. Caspari, 39 F.3d 204, 207 (8th Cir. 1994)

("Jurisdiction is no exception to the general rule that federal courts will not engage in collateral
review of state court decisions based on state law."); Watts v. Bonneville, 879 F.2d 685, 687 (9th
Cir. 1989) (alleged violation of state sentencing statute not cognizable in federal habeas
proceedings). Furthermore, a state prisoner "may not ... transform a state-law issue into a
federal one merely by asserting a violation of due process." Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380,
1389 (9th Cir. 1996).
In this case, petitioner's claim is based solely on the Missouri courts' interpretation of a
state statute.

As a result, it is not cognizable in federal habeas proceedings and must be

2

dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). To the extent that petitioner has any available avenue to
relief, it lies in state court.
Finally, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that jurists of reason would find it debatable
whether jurisdiction exists in this matter.

Thus, the Court will not issue a certificate of

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition 1s DENIED, and this action 1s
DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability.
An Order of Dismissal will be filed forthwith.
Dated this 15th day of May, 2017.

3