Mason B., Petitioner Below, Petitioner
v.
Donnie Ames, Superintendent, Mt. Olive Correctional Complex, Respondent Below, Respondent
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
September 27, 2021
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Self-represented petitioner Mason B. appeals the October 5, 2020, order of the Circuit Court of Mercer County denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.[1] Respondent Donnie Ames, Superintendent, Mt. Olive Correctional Complex, by counsel Patrick Morrisey and Lara K. Bissett, filed a summary 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.
Petitioner is twenty-nine years old. In February of 2018, petitioner was indicted in the Circuit Court of Mercer County on one count of first-degree sexual assault; one count of sexual abuse by a parent, guardian, custodian, or person of trust; and one count of battery. According to the indictment, petitioner made "physical (oral) contact with the sex organs of [the victim], without the consent of [the victim], which lack of consent resulted from the [victim], being younger than twelve years old[.]" Petitioner and the State reached a plea agreement. Petitioner agreed to plead guilty to third-degree sexual assault, as a lesser included offense of first-degree sexual assault, and to sexual abuse by a parent, guardian, custodian, or person of trust. The State agreed to dismiss the battery count and to recommend that petitioner's sentence for sexual abuse by a parent, guardian, custodian, or person of trust be suspended.
Based upon the audio recordings of the plea hearing, the habeas court found in its October 5, 2020, order that the trial court advised petitioner that it was not bound by the State's recommendation and engaged petitioner in a plea colloquy.[2] The trial court informed petitioner of the rights that he would be surrendering by pleading guilty, including the right to a trial by jury. The habeas court found that the record showed that "[p]etitioner understood his rights, the effect of his waiver, and the possible sentence that he could receive." The habeas court further found that petitioner was asked if he was pleading guilty because he was guilty, and he answered "yes."
At the plea hearing, the trial court also questioned petitioner's counsel about the number of meetings counsel had with petitioner and the extent to which counsel discussed with petitioner "the charges against him, the evidence[, ] and his constitutional rights." Counsel proffered that, during numerous conferences with petitioner, "they discussed all of the charges against . . . [p]etitioner, the elements of each crime[, ] all of his constitutional rights." The habeas court found that the trial court "asked . . . [p]etitioner if defense counsel's statements were correct and . . . [p]etitioner answered in the affirmative." The trial court accepted petitioner's guilty pleas, finding that they were voluntarily and intelligently made, and adjudged petitioner guilty of third-degree sexual assault and sexual abuse by a parent, guardian, custodian, or person of trust.
At the sentencing hearing, the trial court denied petitioner's request for alternative sentencing and imposed concurrent terms of incarceration of one to five years for third-degree sexual assault and ten to twenty years for sexual abuse by a parent, guardian, custodian, or person of trust. Petitioner did not file an appeal in his criminal case.
On March 2, 2020, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and disproportionate sentences.[3] By order entered on October 5, 2020, the habeas court found that, after reviewing the petition and the record before it, both grounds of relief were without merit and that an evidentiary hearing and appointment of counsel were unnecessary. Accordingly, the habeas court denied the petition.
Petitioner now appeals the habeas court's October 5, 2020, order denying the habeas petition. This Court reviews a court order denying a habeas petition under the following standard:
"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)
Syl. Pt. 1, Anstey v. Ballard, 237 W.Va. 411, 787 S.E.2d 864 (2016). Furthermore,
[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
Syl. Pt. 1, Perdue v. Coiner, 156 W.Va. 467, 194 S.E.2d 657 (1973).
On appeal, petitioner argues that the denial of his petition without a hearing and appointment of counsel was erroneous. Respondent counters that the habeas court properly denied the petition. We agree with respondent and conclude that, pursuant to Syllabus Point 1 of Perdue and for the reasons set forth below, the habeas court committed no error in denying the petition without a hearing and appointment of counsel.[4]
In arguing that counsel was ineffective in failing to prepare petitioner's case for trial and to retain an expert to evaluate the veracity of the victim's accusations of sexual abuse, petitioner acknowledges that he was convicted due to his guilty pleas. This Court employs a specific test for reviewing ineffective assistance claims in cases where the defendant pled guilty:
"In the West Virginia courts, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are to be governed by the two-prong test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984): (1) Counsel's performance was deficient under an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different." Syllabus point 5, State v. Miller 194 W.Va. 3, 459 S.E.2d 114 (1995).
In cases involving a criminal conviction based upon a guilty plea, the prejudice requirement of the two-part test established by Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and State v. Miller, 194 W.Va. 3, 459 S.E.2d 114 (1995), demands that a habeas petitioner show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors,...
