§ 53-4A-1 — Right to habeas corpus for post-conviction review; jurisdiction; when contention deemed finally adjudicated or waived; effect upon other remedies

West Virginia § 53-4A-1

• Jurisdiction: West Virginia
• Ch. 53: EXTRAORDINARY REMEDIES
• Art. 4A: POST-CONVICTION HABEAS CORPUS

Text

(a) Any person convicted of a crime and incarcerated under sentence of imprisonment therefor who contends that there was such a denial or infringement of his or her rights as to render the conviction or sentence void under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of this state, or both, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose the sentence, or that the sentence exceeds the maximum authorized by law, or that the conviction or sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack upon any ground of alleged error heretofore available under the common law or any statutory provision of this state, may, without paying a filing fee, file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, and prosecute the same, seeking release from such illegal imprisonment, correction of the sentence, the setting aside of the plea, conviction and sentence, or other relief, if and only if such contention or contentions and the grounds in fact or law relied upon in support thereof have not been previously and finally adjudicated or waived in the proceedings which resulted in the conviction and sentence, or in a proceeding or proceedings on a prior petition or petitions filed under the provisions of this article, or in any other proceeding or proceedings which the petitioner has instituted to secure relief from such conviction or sentence. Any such petition shall be filed with the clerk of the Supreme Court of Appeals, or the clerk of any circuit court, said Supreme Court of Appeals and all circuit courts of this state having been granted original jurisdiction in habeas corpus cases by the Constitution of this state, or with the clerk of any court of record of limited jurisdiction having criminal jurisdiction in this state. Jurisdiction is hereby conferred upon each and every such court of record of limited jurisdiction having criminal jurisdiction (hereinafter for convenience of reference referred to simply as a “statutory court”) to refuse or grant writs of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum in accordance with the provisions of this article and to hear and determine any contention or contentions and to pass upon all grounds in fact or law relied upon in support thereof in any proceeding on any such writ made returnable thereto in accordance with the provisions of this article. All proceedings in accordance with this article shall be civil in character and shall under no circumstances be regarded as criminal proceedings or a criminal case.

(b) For the purposes of this article, a contention or contentions and the grounds in fact or law relied upon in support thereof shall be deemed to have been previously and finally adjudicated only when at some point in the proceedings which resulted in the conviction and sentence, or in a proceeding or proceedings on a prior petition or petitions filed under the provisions of this article, or in any other proceeding or proceedings instituted by the petitioner to secure relief from his or her conviction or sentence, there was a decision on the merits thereof after a full and fair hearing thereon and the time for the taking of an appeal with respect to such decision has not expired or has expired, as the case may be, or the right of appeal with respect to such decision has been exhausted, unless said decision upon the merits is clearly wrong.

(1) For purposes of this article, and notwithstanding any other provisions of this article, a contention or contentions shall not be deemed to be previously and finally adjudicated when either relevant forensic scientific evidence exists that was not available to be offered by a petitioner at the time of the petitioner’s conviction or which undermines forensic scientific evidence relied on by the state at trial; and there is a reasonable probability there would be a different outcome at trial.

(2) For purposes of this section:

(A) “Forensic science” is the application of scientific or technical practices to the recognition, collection, analysis, and interpretation of evidence for criminal and civil law or regulatory issues.

(B) “Forensic scientific evidence” shall include scientific or technical knowledge; a testifying forensic analyst’s or expert’s scientific or technical knowledge or opinion; reports and/or testimony offered by experts or forensic analysts; scientific standards; or a scientific method or technique upon which the relevant forensic scientific evidence is based.

(C) “Scientific knowledge” shall be defined broadly to include the knowledge of the general scientific community and all fields of scientific knowledge on which those fields or disciplines rely and shall not be limited to practitioners or proponents of a particular scientific or technical field or discipline.

(c) For the purposes of this article, a contention or contentions and the grounds in fact or law relied upon in support thereof shall be deemed to have been waived when the petitioner could have advanced, but intelligently and knowingly failed to advance, such contention or contentions and grounds before trial, at trial, or on direct appeal (whether or not said petitioner actually took an appeal), or in a proceeding or proceedings on a prior petition or petitions filed under the provisions of this article, or in any other proceeding or proceedings instituted by the petitioner to secure relief from his or her conviction or sentence, unless such contention or contentions and grounds are such that, under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of this state, they cannot be waived under the circumstances giving rise to the alleged waiver. When any such contention or contentions and grounds could have been advanced by the petitioner before trial, at trial, or on direct appeal (whether or not said petitioner actually took an appeal), or in a proceeding or proceedings on a prior petition or petitions filed under the provisions of this article, or in any other proceeding or proceedings instituted by the petitioner to secure relief from his or her conviction or sentence, but were not in fact so advanced, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the petitioner intelligently and knowingly failed to advance such contention or contentions and grounds. For the purposes of this article, and notwithstanding any other provisions of this article, a contention or contentions shall not be deemed to have been waived when either relevant forensic scientific evidence exists that was not available to be offered by a petitioner at the time of the petitioner’s conviction or which undermines forensic scientific evidence relied on by the state at trial; and there is a reasonable probability there would be a different outcome at trial.

(d) This section does not create additional liabilities, beyond those already recognized, for an expert who repudiates his or her original opinion provided at a hearing or trial or whose opinion has been undermined by later scientific research or technological advancements.

(e) For the purposes of this article, and notwithstanding any other provisions of this article, no such contention or contentions and grounds shall be deemed to have been previously and finally adjudicated or to have been waived where, subsequent to any decision upon the merits thereof or subsequent to any proceeding or proceedings in which said question otherwise may have been waived, any court whose decisions are binding upon the Supreme Court of Appeals of this state or any court whose decisions are binding upon the lower courts of this state holds that the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of West Virginia, or both, impose upon state criminal proceedings a procedural or substantive standard not theretofore recognized, if and only if such standard is intended to be applied retroactively and would thereby affect the validity of the petitioner’s conviction or sentence.

(f) The writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum provided for in this article is not a substitute for nor does it affect any remedies which are incident to the criminal proceedings in the trial court or any remedy of direct review of the conviction or sentence, but such writ comprehends and takes the place of all other common law and statutory remedies, including, but not limited to, the writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum provided for in §53-4-1 of this code, which have heretofore been available for challenging the validity of a conviction or sentence and shall be used exclusively in lieu thereof:Provided, That nothing contained in this article shall operate to bar any proceeding or proceedings in which a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is sought for any purpose other than to challenge the legality of a criminal conviction or sentence of imprisonment therefor. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum in accordance with the provisions of this article may be filed at any time after the conviction and sentence in the criminal proceedings have been rendered and imposed and the time for the taking of an appeal with respect thereto has expired or the right of appeal with respect thereto has been exhausted.

Legislative History

2021 Reg. Sess., HB2888