Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Wade v. Wallace, 4:16-CV-378 JCH. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri Number: infdco20160519d51 Visitors: 5
Filed: May 18, 2016
Latest Update: May 18, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JEAN C. HAMILTON , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on review of the petition of Liddell Wilson for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The petition is successive and is dismissed. Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and armed criminal action for crimes he committed as a juvenile. Missouri v. Wade, No. 951-4362A (St. Louis City). The court sentenced him to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. After his ap
More

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on review of the petition of Liddell Wilson for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition is successive and is dismissed.

Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and armed criminal action for crimes he committed as a juvenile. Missouri v. Wade, No. 951-4362A (St. Louis City). The court sentenced him to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. After his appeals were denied, he sought habeas relief in this Court. Wade v. Dormire, No. 4:02-CV-863 JCH. The Court denied the petition and did not issue a certificate of appealability.

In this case, petitioner challenges the same conviction and sentence under Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012), which held that juveniles may not be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. To the extent that petitioner seeks to relitigate claims that he brought in his original petition, those claims must be denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). To the extent that petitioner seeks to bring new claims for habeas relief, petitioner must obtain leave from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit before he can bring those claims in this Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Petitioner did not seek leave from the Court of Appeals before filing this action. As a result, this action is dismissed.

Finally, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition is successive. Thus, the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.

An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer