Wolf v. Morriss

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri
DecidedFebruary 24, 2021
Docket4:21-cv-00221
StatusUnknown

This text of Wolf v. Morriss (Wolf v. Morriss) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wolf v. Morriss, (E.D. Mo. 2021).

Opinion

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

TIMOTHY MERLE WOLF, JR., ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) No. 4:21-CV-221 JMB ) KELLY MORRISS, ) ) Respondent. )

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon the petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, filed by Timothy Merle Wolf, Jr. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Because it appears that petitioner has not fully presented his claims to the Missouri courts, the petition will be dismissed for failure to exhaust available state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under § 2254. Petitioner’s Criminal Background in Federal Court On January 29, 2010, in front of the Honorable Henry Edward Autrey, petitioner plead guilty to possession of pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(1) and punishable under 21 U.S.C. § 841(c). United States v. Wolf, No. 4:09CR707 HEA (E.D.Mo). On April 27, 2010, the Court sentenced petitioner to a total term of 87 months’ imprisonment and two years of supervised release. Id. Supervision of petitioner commenced on July 1, 2015. On January 15, 2016, a report was filed by his United States Probation Officer requesting that his substance abuse counseling condition be suspended. It was reported that petitioner had successfully completed the Residential Drug Abuse Program during his incarceration, and he had, since his release from confinement, continued to maintain full-time employment, negative urine specimens (for illicit substances), and 1 attend substance abuse counseling was suspended. United States v. Wolf, No. 4:09CR707 HEA

(E.D.Mo). On January 19, 2017, petitioner’s United States Probation Officer reported that petitioner had violated his supervised release conditions by using methamphetamine. The Officer stated in his report: On January 7, 2017, this officer was contacted by the offender who indicated on January 6, 2017, his girlfriend Marivic Basas had died while they were using methamphetamine. The offender indicated they both had been using methamphetamine for two days. On the second day he woke up next to his girlfriend and observed she was not breathing. The offender called 911; emergency first responders responded to the call but were unable to revive Basas. The offender admitted that he had used methamphetamine on one previous occasion. This officer contacted the St. Charles County Sheriff’s Department detective who handled this case and the investigation. The detective confirmed this information and indicated it did not appear the offender would be charged with any wrongdoing.

Based on the offender’s mental state related to the trauma of his girlfriend dying, and his relapse with controlled substances, it is requested a modification for mental health treatment be granted.

Id. Petitioner’s Probation Officer additionally recommended having petitioner attend one individual integrated substance abuse/mental health counseling meeting a week and participate in random urine testing. Petitioner agreed to the proposed modifications and waived a hearing on the modified conditions. The Court ordered the change in conditions. Id. On March 14, 2017, the United States Probation Officer in charge of petitioner’s supervision recommended issuing a warrant for petitioner’s arrest for three violations of the terms of his supervised release. The Officer stated: On January 7, 2017, this officer was contacted by the offender who indicated on January 6, 2017, his girlfriend Marivic Basas had died while they were using methamphetamine. The offender indicated they both had been using methamphetamine for two days. On the second day, he woke up next to his girlfriend and observed she was not breathing. First Responders responded to the 2 methamphetamine on one previous occasion.

According to St. Charles County Detectives this is still an open death investigation and they are currently unable to provide any further information. As a result of this violation, the offender was provided with integrated treatment for dual disorders.

On March 13, 2017, this officer made contact with the offender at the Wentzville Police Department. During this meeting, the offender admitted to continued use of methamphetamine. In addition, a glass vial of clear fluid was located in the offender’s vehicle. When questioned about this vial, the offender indicated it was steroids that he had been using. The offender indicated he no longer uses this drug.

On March 12, 2017, this officer attempted to make contact with the offender at his sister’s residence, which was his reported address. The offender’s sister indicated she had kicked the offender out of the residence due to erratic behavior. She indicated that she did not know where the offender was residing; however, she would try and get the offender to call this officer.

On March 13, 2017, this officer met with the offender at the Wentzville Police Department. The offender indicated he had met a girl at the casino and has been staying at her house. The offender was unable to provide an address of this location. When asked where he was staying this evening, the offender indicated he would be staying at a hotel. The offender did not know which hotel he would be staying.

When interviewed about this violation, the offender indicated that he had been staying at different locations with people that he has met. The offender indicated he was unable to provide any of these addresses. The offender did not provide a reason for not responding to messages left by this officer. As the offender is unable to provide a permanent address, this officer is unable to locate the offender when needed.

The offender admitted that he has been using methamphetamine with friends for the last two months. In addition, the offender indicated he has not used in the last two weeks.

United States v. Wolf, No. 4:09CR707 HEA (E.D.Mo). On March 14, 2017, the District Court issued a warrant for petitioner’s arrest. On January 10, 2020, the United States Probation Officer in charge of petitioner’s supervision filed a first amended petition for warrant or summons for offender under supervision. The Probation Officer sought a new warrant for petitioner’s arrest based on the culmination of petitioner’s criminal history in state court: 3 was presented to the prosecuting attorney’s office advising the offender, on or about January 6, 2017, knowingly caused the death of his 39 year old girlfriend by means of blunt force resulting in closed head trauma. The offender was the only person with the victim after 8:00pm on January 5, 2017. The victim’s 16 year old daughter, last saw her eating dinner. The victim’s 18 year old son, heard yelling and “loud thumps” between 1:00am and 4:00am, coming from the victim’s, and the offender’s room. The offender indicated he had an argument with the victim the evening of January 5, 2017. The offender and the victim’s children admitted the relationship between them was volatile and they argued daily. The offender admitted that he used methamphetamine and steroids. A liquid steroid was seized from the master bathroom adjoining the offender’s bedroom on January 6, 2017.

On April 3, 2018, the offender pled guilty to Involuntary Manslaughter on an Alford Plea. The St. Charles County Circuit Court case number is 1711-CR01215-01.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Rose v. Lundy
455 U.S. 509 (Supreme Court, 1982)
O'Sullivan v. Boerckel
526 U.S. 838 (Supreme Court, 1999)
Duncan v. Walker
533 U.S. 167 (Supreme Court, 2001)
State v. Hotze
250 S.W.3d 745 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2008)
State v. Welch
865 S.W.2d 434 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Wolf v. Morriss, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolf-v-morriss-moed-2021.