STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
Larry James Williams, FILED Petitioner Below, Petitioner May 18, 2015 RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS vs) No. 14-0590 (Kanawha County 14-P-247) OF WEST VIRGINIA
Lance Yardley, Warden, Pruntytown Correctional Center, Respondent Below, Respondent
MEMORANDUM DECISION Pro se petitioner Larry James Williams appeals the Circuit Court of Kanawha County’s May 23, 2014, order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Respondent Lance Yardley, Warden, by counsel Laura Young, filed a response and a supplemental appendix.1 On appeal, petitioner alleges that the circuit court erred in denying him habeas relief without appointing counsel or holding an omnibus evidentiary hearing, and that his constitutional rights were violated by the State’s failure to provide him with exculpatory evidence and his trial counsel’s failure to challenge the illegal search of his home and his unlawful arrest.
This 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.
After petitioner was indicted on two counts of possession with intent to deliver cocaine, one count of conspiracy to deliver heroin, and one count of possession with intent to deliver heroin, the State offered petitioner a plea agreement in October of 2013. Pursuant to the agreement, petitioner would plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to deliver heroin and the State would dismiss the remaining counts of the indictment, recommend probation, and not seek a recidivist enhancement against petitioner. Petitioner ultimately accepted this plea agreement. That same day, petitioner entered his guilty plea in the circuit court. Petitioner was thereafter released on bond.
1 In the circuit court proceeding, the actual respondent was Craig Adkins, Administrator of South Central Regional Jail where petitioner was housed at the time his petition was filed. Petitioner has subsequently been transferred to Pruntytown Correctional Center. Pursuant to Rule 41(c) of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure, the appropriate party has been substituted in the style of this matter.
After failing to appear for his initial disposition, petitioner was brought before the circuit court for sentencing in January of 2014, after being arrested on unrelated domestic violence charges. The State abided by the agreement and recommended probation, but the circuit court imposed a term of incarceration of one to five years. In May of 2014, petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court alleging that he was subjected to unlawful search and seizure, his arrest was unlawful, the State failed to provide exculpatory evidence, and his counsel was ineffective. However, according to the record on appeal, petitioner provided no evidence or other documents in support of his petition in the circuit court.2 Approximately one week later, the circuit court entered an order dismissing petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus without appointing counsel or holding an omnibus evidentiary hearing. It is from the resulting order that petitioner appeals.
This Court reviews appeals of circuit court orders denying habeas corpus relief 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.” Syllabus point 1, Mathena v. Haines, 219 W.Va. 417, 633 S.E.2d 771 (2006).
Syl. Pt. 1, State ex rel. Franklin v. McBride, 226 W.Va. 375, 701 S.E.2d 97 (2009).
To begin, we find no error in the circuit court denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus without first appointing an attorney to represent petitioner or holding an omnibus evidentiary hearing. We have previously held that a circuit court
“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. 3, in part, Markley v. Coleman, 215 W.Va. 729, 601 S.E.2d 49 (2004). According to the record, petitioner filed no supporting documentation for his petition and instead relied solely upon his own assertions that he was entitled to habeas relief. As such, the circuit court was within its discretion to deny the petition because it failed to show that petitioner was entitled to relief. For these reasons, the Court finds no error in the circuit court denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus without appointing counsel to represent petitioner or holding an omnibus evidentiary hearing.
2 Similarly, petitioner provided no documents in support of his petition for appeal to this Court. The only appendix in this matter is respondent’s supplemental appendix. 2
As to petitioner’s allegations that the circuit court erred in denying his petition because he was subjected to an illegal search and seizure and an unlawful arrest, and that the State failed to provide him with exculpatory evidence, the Court finds no merit in these arguments. As in the circuit court, petitioner has provided no evidence or other documentation in support of these allegations on appeal. The Court notes that petitioner has not identified any exculpatory evidence that he alleges was inappropriately withheld, other than an assertion that a criminal complaint was later filed against an individual present in petitioner’s home during the arrest for undisclosed charges. While petitioner argues that, as a pro se petitioner, he could not provide specific details in support of his claims, such specificity does not require legal knowledge, only an ability to identify evidence that was favorable to his defense. In the present case, petitioner has not attempted to explain how such evidence is exculpatory nor has he established that the State was in possession of said evidence prior to his plea agreement, as no supporting documentation establishes when this criminal complaint was filed. Moreover, petitioner has provided no evidence that would establish his arrest was unlawful or that he was subjected to an illegal search and seizure. Further, as the circuit court noted, the order accepting petitioner’s plea specifically states that by entering the plea agreement, petitioner “waive[d] all pre-trial defects with regard to, among others, his arrest, [and] the gathering of evidence.” As such, the Court finds no error in the circuit court summarily dismissing these claims.
Finally, petitioner reasserts his claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel below.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
Larry James Williams, FILED Petitioner Below, Petitioner May 18, 2015 RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS vs) No. 14-0590 (Kanawha County 14-P-247) OF WEST VIRGINIA
Lance Yardley, Warden, Pruntytown Correctional Center, Respondent Below, Respondent
MEMORANDUM DECISION Pro se petitioner Larry James Williams appeals the Circuit Court of Kanawha County’s May 23, 2014, order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Respondent Lance Yardley, Warden, by counsel Laura Young, filed a response and a supplemental appendix.1 On appeal, petitioner alleges that the circuit court erred in denying him habeas relief without appointing counsel or holding an omnibus evidentiary hearing, and that his constitutional rights were violated by the State’s failure to provide him with exculpatory evidence and his trial counsel’s failure to challenge the illegal search of his home and his unlawful arrest.
This 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.
After petitioner was indicted on two counts of possession with intent to deliver cocaine, one count of conspiracy to deliver heroin, and one count of possession with intent to deliver heroin, the State offered petitioner a plea agreement in October of 2013. Pursuant to the agreement, petitioner would plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to deliver heroin and the State would dismiss the remaining counts of the indictment, recommend probation, and not seek a recidivist enhancement against petitioner. Petitioner ultimately accepted this plea agreement. That same day, petitioner entered his guilty plea in the circuit court. Petitioner was thereafter released on bond.
1 In the circuit court proceeding, the actual respondent was Craig Adkins, Administrator of South Central Regional Jail where petitioner was housed at the time his petition was filed. Petitioner has subsequently been transferred to Pruntytown Correctional Center. Pursuant to Rule 41(c) of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure, the appropriate party has been substituted in the style of this matter.
After failing to appear for his initial disposition, petitioner was brought before the circuit court for sentencing in January of 2014, after being arrested on unrelated domestic violence charges. The State abided by the agreement and recommended probation, but the circuit court imposed a term of incarceration of one to five years. In May of 2014, petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court alleging that he was subjected to unlawful search and seizure, his arrest was unlawful, the State failed to provide exculpatory evidence, and his counsel was ineffective. However, according to the record on appeal, petitioner provided no evidence or other documents in support of his petition in the circuit court.2 Approximately one week later, the circuit court entered an order dismissing petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus without appointing counsel or holding an omnibus evidentiary hearing. It is from the resulting order that petitioner appeals.
This Court reviews appeals of circuit court orders denying habeas corpus relief 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.” Syllabus point 1, Mathena v. Haines, 219 W.Va. 417, 633 S.E.2d 771 (2006).
Syl. Pt. 1, State ex rel. Franklin v. McBride, 226 W.Va. 375, 701 S.E.2d 97 (2009).
To begin, we find no error in the circuit court denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus without first appointing an attorney to represent petitioner or holding an omnibus evidentiary hearing. We have previously held that a circuit court
“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. 3, in part, Markley v. Coleman, 215 W.Va. 729, 601 S.E.2d 49 (2004). According to the record, petitioner filed no supporting documentation for his petition and instead relied solely upon his own assertions that he was entitled to habeas relief. As such, the circuit court was within its discretion to deny the petition because it failed to show that petitioner was entitled to relief. For these reasons, the Court finds no error in the circuit court denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus without appointing counsel to represent petitioner or holding an omnibus evidentiary hearing.
2 Similarly, petitioner provided no documents in support of his petition for appeal to this Court. The only appendix in this matter is respondent’s supplemental appendix. 2
As to petitioner’s allegations that the circuit court erred in denying his petition because he was subjected to an illegal search and seizure and an unlawful arrest, and that the State failed to provide him with exculpatory evidence, the Court finds no merit in these arguments. As in the circuit court, petitioner has provided no evidence or other documentation in support of these allegations on appeal. The Court notes that petitioner has not identified any exculpatory evidence that he alleges was inappropriately withheld, other than an assertion that a criminal complaint was later filed against an individual present in petitioner’s home during the arrest for undisclosed charges. While petitioner argues that, as a pro se petitioner, he could not provide specific details in support of his claims, such specificity does not require legal knowledge, only an ability to identify evidence that was favorable to his defense. In the present case, petitioner has not attempted to explain how such evidence is exculpatory nor has he established that the State was in possession of said evidence prior to his plea agreement, as no supporting documentation establishes when this criminal complaint was filed. Moreover, petitioner has provided no evidence that would establish his arrest was unlawful or that he was subjected to an illegal search and seizure. Further, as the circuit court noted, the order accepting petitioner’s plea specifically states that by entering the plea agreement, petitioner “waive[d] all pre-trial defects with regard to, among others, his arrest, [and] the gathering of evidence.” As such, the Court finds no error in the circuit court summarily dismissing these claims.
Finally, petitioner reasserts his claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel below. In support, petitioner argues that his counsel provided ineffective assistance in recommending he accept the plea agreement because he failed to properly investigate the matter or move to suppress illegally obtained evidence. The Court, however, does not agree. Upon our review and consideration of the circuit court’s order, the parties’ arguments, and record submitted on appeal, we find no error or abuse of discretion by the circuit court. Our review of the record supports the circuit court’s decision to deny petitioner post-conviction habeas corpus relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel, which was also argued below. Indeed, the circuit court’s order includes well-reasoned findings and conclusions as to this assignment of error raised on appeal. Given our conclusion that the circuit court’s order and the record before us reflect no clear error or abuse of discretion, we hereby adopt and incorporate the circuit court’s findings and conclusions as they relate to petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and direct the Clerk to attach a copy of the circuit court’s May 23, 2014, “Final Order Refusing Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus” to this memorandum decision.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.
Affirmed. ISSUED: May 18, 2015
CONCURRED IN BY:
Chief Justice Margaret L. Workman Justice Robin Jean Davis Justice Brent D. Benjamin Justice Menis E. Ketchum Justice Allen H. Loughry II