Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Missouri v. Williams

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division

August 27, 2019

VINCENT MISSOURI, Petitioner,
v.
RANDALL WILLIAMS, Warden, Respondent.

          ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND DENYING THE PETITION

          MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Petitioner Vincent Missouri (Missouri), a self-represented state prisoner, filed this case as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting Respondent Randall Williams's (Williams) motion for summary judgment be granted and Missouri's petition be denied. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.

         The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

         The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on March 14, 2019, and the Clerk of Court entered Missouri's objections on April 1, 2019. The Court has carefully reviewed the objections, but holds them to be without merit. It will therefore enter judgment accordingly.

         As a preliminary matter, the Court notes there is no dispute Missouri has satisfied the exhaustion requirements of Section 2254. As a matter of clarification, however, the Court notes the South Carolina Supreme Court has “declare[d] that in all appeals from criminal convictions or post-conviction relief matters, a litigant shall not be required to petition for rehearing and certiorari following an adverse decision of the Court of Appeals . . . to be deemed to have exhausted all available state remedies respecting a claim of error.” In re Exhaustion of State Remedies in Criminal and Post-Conviction Relief, 471 S.E.2d 454, 454 (1990).

         On October 31, 2014, as per Missouri's plea agreement with the State, he pled guilty to two counts of bank robbery. Although he had earlier indicated to Judge L. Verdin he wanted to represent himself, there is no mention of that at his plea hearing before Judge James R. Barber, III (Judge Barber).

         Judge Barber sentenced Missouri to concurrent ten-year sentences on each count and ordered his sentences run consecutive to an earlier imposed twenty-year sentence. Missouri failed to file a direct appeal as to his plea. Instead, he filed a pro se Post-Conviction Relief (PCR) Application in state court.

         The PCR court denied and dismissed Missouri's petition, and the South Carolina Supreme Court denied his petition for cert. Missouri then filed his Section 2254 petition with this Court. He raises four grounds for relief:

GROUND ONE: That Petitioner is being held in custody in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to have represented himself.
GROUND TWO: Denial of effective assistance of counsel during PCR stages, in violation of Petitioner's Sixth Amendment right.
GROUND THREE: That the state court lacked subject-matter-jurisdiction to accept the guilty plea.
GROUND FOUR: Denial of Due Process, in “Failing to timely hold a hearing into Petitioner's request to represent himself.”

Report 7-8.

         The Magistrate Judge suggests Grounds One and Four are procedurally barred, and Grounds Two and Three are non-cognizable as Section 2254 claims. Missouri make no specific objections regarding Grounds Two and Three, but argues Grounds One and Four, which concern his right to represent himself in his state proceedings, are not procedurally barred. In support, he ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.