The Eastern District of Missouri has also arrived at the same conclusion in an earlier decision. See Brooks v. Wallace, 4:16 CV 208 (JMB), 2018 WL 999971, at *7 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 21, 2018) ("Martinez announced an equitable modification of Coleman [v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991)] to excuse, in limited circumstances, the procedural default of ineffective-[assistance-of-]trial-counsel claims when post-conviction [motion] counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the claims in the state [PCR] proceedings. Martinez, 566 U.S. at 9.
Thus, he cannot establish that his lawyer provided ineffective assistance. See Brooks v. Wallace, No. 4:16CV208 JMB, 2018 WL 999971, at *7 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 21, 2018) (petitioner not entitled to habeas relief on claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to raise double jeopardy challenge to armed criminal action conviction); see also Williams v. Wallace, No. 4:15CV534 AGF, 2017 WL 6731722, at *5 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 29, 2017) (no double jeopardy violation arises from Missouri convictions for both underlying offense and armed criminal action); Jones-El v. Wallace, No. 4:13CV85 SPM, 2016 WL 1258632, at *6 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 31, 2016) (same). Petitioner's related assertion in Ground 6 that his convictions for first-degree robbery and armed criminal action violate Missouri's statute against cumulative punishment, ยง 566.041, is also unavailing. This statute does not apply where, as here, the specific statutes governing punishment for the offenses at issue make it clear that the legislature intended cumulative punishment.