Brian Dement v. Karen Pszczolkowski, 859 S.E.2d 732

Background

In August 2002 Deanna Crawford’s body was found on Hickory Ridge; cause of death was manual strangulation and investigators recovered evidence including a pair of leopard-print pants.
The investigation stalled until 2007 when relatives reported that Brian Dement had made incriminating statements; Dement gave multiple, inconsistent written and recorded statements to police in January 2007.
Dement pled guilty to second-degree murder (2007) and was sentenced; codefendants (Black and the Barnett brothers) were tried and convicted or later pled.
Post-conviction DNA testing (ordered in 2016) detected a single-source Y-STR profile on the crotch of the leopard-print pants and on a cigarette at the scene; the profile excluded Dement and his codefendants and matched Timothy Smith.
Dement filed a habeas petition (2018) asserting newly discovered DNA evidence, freestanding innocence, and manifest injustice to withdraw his plea; the circuit court granted relief to codefendants but denied Dement after a cursory hearing and issued a sparse three-page order.
The West Virginia Supreme Court reversed, holding the circuit court abused its discretion by failing to provide a meaningful evidentiary (omnibus) hearing and by issuing an order that did not comply with West Virginia Code §53-4A-7 and Rule 9.

Issues

Issue	Dement's Argument	Respondent's Argument	Held
Whether circuit court abused discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing on habeas petition based on newly discovered DNA	Dement: new DNA evidence is favorable, not previously available, and required an omnibus evidentiary hearing	State: hearing unnecessary because court allowed Dement to vouch the record and the court’s order is sufficient	Court: abused discretion; remanded for omnibus evidentiary hearing
Whether newly discovered DNA would likely change outcome at trial under newly-discovered-evidence standards	Dement: DNA excludes him and points to another assailant (Timothy Smith), so it could produce a different result	State: Dement’s prior confessions, guilty plea, and testimony make DNA unlikely to change result	Court: declined to resolve on the merits; ordered hearing so factual development can occur
Whether court improperly considered guilty plea as dispositive when evaluating new evidence	Dement: plea should not foreclose consideration of exculpatory DNA discovered later	State: plea and prior sworn statements weigh against relief	Court: faulted lower court for relying on plea without full development of evidence; required hearing and fact-specific findings
Whether the circuit court’s written order satisfied statutory and rule requirements for findings of fact and conclusions of law	Dement: order was sparse and failed to comply with WV Code §53-4A-7 and Rule 9	State: sparse order is nevertheless sufficient for appeal	Court: order was deficient; remanded and instructed to enter an order with specific findings and conclusions as required by statute and Rule 9

Key Cases Cited

Mathena v. Haines, 219 W. Va. 417, 633 S.E.2d 771 (2006) (standard of review for habeas appeals: abuse of discretion for ultimate disposition, clearly erroneous for facts, de novo for law)
Perdue v. Coiner, 156 W. Va. 467, 194 S.E.2d 657 (1973) (habeas petition may be denied without hearing if record shows petitioner is entitled to no relief)
State ex rel. Watson v. Hill, 200 W. Va. 201, 488 S.E.2d 476 (1997) (circuit court must make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law in habeas orders per statute)
Losh v. McKenzie, 166 W. Va. 762, 277 S.E.2d 606 (1981) (omnibus post-conviction hearing required for issues not fully and fairly litigated at trial)
Gibson v. Dale, 173 W. Va. 681, 319 S.E.2d 806 (1984) (Townsend factors provide guidance when state courts must hold evidentiary hearings)
Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 (1963) (circumstances in which federal courts must conduct evidentiary hearings on habeas applications)
State v. Frazier, 162 W. Va. 935, 253 S.E.2d 534 (1979) (factors governing new trial on ground of newly discovered evidence)
State v. Olish, 164 W. Va. 712, 266 S.E.2d 134 (1980) (manifest injustice standard for withdrawing guilty plea)