Arnold McCartney v. Donnie Ames, 20-0242

Background

Arnold McCartney shot his fiancée in the head at point‑blank range; she died instantly. He was convicted of first‑degree murder and sentenced to life without parole after a jury recommended no mercy.
At trial McCartney’s defenses were voluntary intoxication, heat of passion, and accident; he was found guilty in the guilt phase and the jury rejected mercy after about 12 minutes.
On direct appeal this Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. McCartney then filed an amended post‑conviction habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for numerous omissions (voir dire, cross‑examination on intoxication, failure to seek experts on diminished capacity/competency/ballistics, failure to present witnesses or a mercy plea, and deficient instructions).
The State conceded the omission of an expert on premeditation was below standards but disputed any effect on the guilty verdict and offered to seek resentencing to allow mercy; the circuit court instead ordered evidentiary hearings.
At hearings a forensic psychiatrist and a defense‑practice expert testified that a psychiatric evaluation could have produced a different result; trial counsel testified the absence of experts/witnesses was strategic and that there was an alleged (unrecorded) agreement limiting mercy‑phase witnesses to the defendant.
The circuit court found counsel’s mercy‑phase performance inadequate but concluded McCartney failed to prove Strickland prejudice; it denied habeas relief. The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Guilt‑phase failure to retain experts (intoxication/diminished capacity; ballistics)	McCartney: counsel should have obtained forensic psychiatric and ballistics experts to show diminished capacity or accidental discharge, which would likely have changed the verdict.	State: trial strategy favored not using experts to protect McCartney; evidence of point‑blank, functioning gun and other trial evidence made experts unlikely to change the result.	Court: No Strickland prejudice — reasonable strategy and no reasonable probability experts would have altered guilty verdict.
Mercy‑phase failure to call witnesses or make a plea for mercy	McCartney: counsel failed to prepare him or call available character/mitigating witnesses and failed to argue for mercy, depriving him of effective assistance.	State: evidence against McCartney was overwhelming; even with witnesses or a plea for mercy the jury would still have recommended no mercy.	Court: Counsel’s mercy‑phase performance was inadequate, but McCartney did not show a reasonable probability of a different mercy outcome; habeas relief denied.
Failure to obtain a forensic psychiatric evaluation (diminished capacity/competency)	McCartney: a psychiatric evaluation would have supported diminished capacity and likely altered both phases.	State: the omission was acknowledged as substandard but would not have changed the guilty verdict; trial evidence was dispositive.	Court: Although witnesses opined evaluation could help, on totality the record did not show Strickland prejudice; no relief.
Cumulative error	McCartney: multiple failures cumulatively deprived him of a fair trial.	State: errors alleged are not established as prejudicial individually, so cumulative doctrine does not apply.	Court: No individual errors found that warrant relief; cumulative error doctrine not triggered.

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes two‑prong ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Miller, 194 W. Va. 3, 459 S.E.2d 114 (W. Va. 1995) (applies Strickland standard in West Virginia and outlines review approach)
State v. McCartney, 228 W. Va. 315, 719 S.E.2d 785 (W. Va. 2011) (direct appeal affirming conviction and addressing trial‑level mercy‑argument issues)
State ex rel. Shelton v. Painter, 221 W. Va. 578, 655 S.E.2d 794 (W. Va. 2007) (discusses counsel’s mercy‑phase argument and Strickland prejudice in mercy context)
Mathena v. Haines, 219 W. Va. 417, 633 S.E.2d 771 (W. Va. 2006) (standards of review for habeas corpus findings)
State ex rel. Vernatter v. Warden, W. Va. Penitentiary, 207 W. Va. 11, 528 S.E.2d 207 (W. Va. 1999) (addresses Strickland prejudice inquiry)
State v. Walker, 188 W. Va. 661, 425 S.E.2d 616 (W. Va. 1992) (cumulative‑error doctrine requires established errors)
Perdue v. Coiner, 156 W. Va. 467, 194 S.E.2d 657 (W. Va. 1973) (appellant’s burden to show error on appeal)