Eric Holmes, Petitioner Below, Petitioner
v.
Shawn Straughn, Superintendent, Northern Correctional Center, Respondent Below, Respondent
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
November 8, 2021
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Self-represented petitioner Eric Holmes appeals the September 30, 2020, order of the Circuit Court of Ohio County denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Respondent Shawn Straughn, Superintendent, Northern Correctional Center, by counsel Patrick Morrisey and Mary Beth Niday, filed a response in support of the circuit court's order.
The Court has considered the parties' briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the briefs, and the record presented, the Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court's order is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
In October of 2008, petitioner participated in the robbery of the home of Jonathan Ward and Kelly Mitchell, during which Mr. Ward was beaten with the butt of a shotgun. State ex rel State v. Sims, 239 W.Va. 764, 765-66, 806 S.E.2d 420, 421-22 (2017). On May 15, 2009, petitioner pleaded guilty to first-degree robbery, and the trial court sentenced him "to 75 years imprisonment." Id. at 766 n.6, 806 S.E.2d at 422 n.6. In 2017, petitioner filed a motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to Rule 35(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure. By amended order entered August 4, 2017, the trial court found that the motion was timely filed
for reasons not apparent on the face of the record.[1] The trial court deferred ruling on the motion "inasmuch as [petitioner] has not yet served the minimum sentence of ten (10) years [of incarceration]."
In both 2018 and 2019, petitioner renewed his motion for reduction of sentence. By order entered on March 29, 2019, the trial court denied the motion. In April of 2019, petitioner filed a motion effectively asking the trial court to reconsider its denial of the Rule 35(b) motion. By order entered on August 5, 2019, the trial court declined to reconsider its denial of the motion for reduction of sentence. Relying upon Syllabus Point 5 of State v. Head, 198 W.Va. 298, 480 S.E.2d 507 (1996), the trial court found that it would be "usurping the role of the parole board" if it entertained petitioner's Rule 35(b) motion "several years into a prison sentence."[2]
On June 8, 2020, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Therein, petitioner alleged that the trial court exhibited bias against petitioner in denying his motion for reduction of sentence. Petitioner further alleged that, prior to his guilty plea, trial counsel failed to adequately investigate his case and that "[b]ut for the actions and/or inactions of [p]etitoner's counsel, . . . [p]etitioner would likely have been offered a better plea offer." By order entered September 30, 2020, the circuit court denied the habeas petition based upon its review of the petition, "the applicable law[, ] and the underlying criminal file."
Petitioner now appeals the habeas court's September 30, 2020, order. This Court reviews a circuit court's order denying a habeas petition under the following standards:
"In reviewing challenges to the findings and conclusions of the circuit court in a habeas corpus action, we apply a three-prong standard of review. We review
the final order and the ultimate disposition under an abuse of discretion standard; the underlying factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard; and questions of law are subject to a de novo review." Syl. Pt. 1, Mathena v. Haines, 219 W.Va. 417, 633 S.E.2d 771 (2006).
. . . .
"'A court having jurisdiction over habeas corpus proceedings may deny a petition for a writ of habeas corpus without a hearing and without appointing counsel for the petitioner if the petition, exhibits, affidavits or other documentary evidence filed therewith show to such court's satisfaction that the petitioner is entitled to no relief.' Syllabus Point 1, Perdue v. Coiner, 156 W.Va. 467, 194 S.E.2d 657 (1973)." Syl. Pt. 2, White v. Haines, 215 W.Va. 698, 601 S.E.2d 18 (2004).
Syl. Pts. 1 & 3, Anstey v. Ballard, 237 W.Va. 411, 787 S.E.2d 864 (2016). In Syllabus Point 1 of State ex rel. Watson v. Hill, 200 W.Va. 201, 488 S.E.2d 476 (1997), this Court held that "West Virginia Code section 53-4A-7(c) (1994) requires a circuit court denying or granting relief in a habeas corpus proceeding to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law relating to each contention advanced by the petitioner, and to state the grounds upon which the matter was determined."[3]
On appeal, in arguing that the September 30, 2020, order should be reversed and that this case be remanded to the habeas court for a hearing and appointment of counsel, petitioner asserts that the court failed to make specific findings with regard to each of his grounds of relief. Respondent counters that the habeas court made sufficient findings to support its denial of the petition, which should be affirmed by this Court. We agree with respondent.
Based on our review of petitioner's brief, we find that petitioner refers to the habeas court's findings in his arguments. With regard to petitioner's claim that the trial court exhibited bias against petitioner, petitioner notes that the habeas court "construed [the claim] as challenging a reduction of sentence motion['s] denial." While petitioner disagrees with this construction of the
claim, it corresponds to the allegation in the petition where petitioner states that the "denial of [p]etitioner's Rule 35(b) [motion] indicates [the trial judge's] bias[ ] against [p]etitioner and his lack of impartiality in the proceedings." We find that the habeas court properly rejected the claim as there was...
