Ancel W. v. David Ballard, Warden
15-0335
| W. Va. | Oct 28, 2016Background
- In 1997 Ancel W. was convicted by jury of multiple counts of first-degree sexual assault, incest, and sexual abuse; sentenced to an aggregate 225–525 years; direct appeal refused in 1999.
- Petitioner filed an omnibus habeas in 2000 alleging sentencing, evidentiary, and ineffective-assistance claims; hearing held in 2001 and habeas denied in 2002; appeal refused in 2003.
- A second habeas filed in 2005 challenged habeas counsel’s effectiveness; the circuit court found habeas counsel had adequately represented petitioner and denied relief; a third petition was dismissed in 2008.
- In April 2014 petitioner filed the instant habeas petition raising 13 grounds (trial evidentiary rulings, jury issues, alleged false testimony, Rule 404(b) evidence, and resentencing claims). The circuit court denied relief as "previously and finally adjudicated or waived."
- Petitioner appealed, arguing the circuit court’s findings were inadequate and that habeas counsel in the first omnibus proceeding failed to raise ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel; respondent maintained the record shows that issue was raised previously and the circuit court’s findings were adequate.
- The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the instant claims were precluded by prior adjudication because ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel had been raised earlier and petitioner did not dispute the prior finding that habeas counsel was effective.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the instant habeas claims are barred by res judicata/previous adjudication | Ancel contends circuit court erred; claims were not finally adjudicated or were waived improperly | Ballard: claims were previously and finally adjudicated or could have been raised earlier | Held: Claims are barred as previously and finally adjudicated or waived; denial affirmed |
| Whether ineffective assistance of trial counsel was raised in the first omnibus habeas | Ancel asserts his first habeas counsel failed to raise ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel | Ballard and record: first habeas counsel did raise ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel | Held: Record conclusively shows the issue was raised previously; res judicata applies |
| Adequacy of circuit court’s findings when denying habeas without hearing | Ancel argues findings were inadequate to foreclose a hearing under Watson/Strickland standard | Ballard: circuit court’s finding that claims were previously adjudicated is adequate given the record | Held: Finding was adequate because the record showed the issue was previously litigated; no abuse of discretion |
| Applicability of Martinez v. Ryan to excuse procedural default | Ancel invokes Martinez as a favorable change allowing review of ineffective-assistance claims | Ballard: Martinez does not apply because habeas counsel in this case did raise the ineffective-assistance claim earlier | Held: Martinez is distinguishable; not applicable because the claim was presented in the first habeas proceeding |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathena v. Haines, 219 W.Va. 417 (W.Va. 2006) (standard of review for habeas appeals: abuse of discretion, clearly erroneous, de novo)
- Losh v. McKenzie, 166 W.Va. 762 (W.Va. 1981) (res judicata for omnibus habeas; exceptions include ineffective assistance of habeas counsel)
- State ex rel. Watson v. Hill, 200 W.Va. 201 (W.Va. 1997) (circuit court must make adequate findings when denying an ineffective-assistance claim without a hearing)
- State v. Miller, 194 W.Va. 3 (W.Va. 1995) (adopting Strickland standard for ineffective assistance)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Stanley v. Dale, 171 W.Va. 192 (W.Va. 1982) (habeas petitioner bears burden to prove allegations by a preponderance of the evidence)