Charles Elder v. Annabelle Scolapia, Home Incarceration Officer, 738 S.E.2d 924

Elder pled guilty to sexual abuse by a person in a position of trust and third degree sexual assault and was sentenced to concurrent terms with home incarceration as the method of confinement.
Post-conviction habeas corpus was filed challenging sentencing and conditions, including ineffective assistance of counsel; the circuit court addressed these claims in two July 11, 2011 orders.
The trial court modified Elder’s home incarceration to provide one hour of outdoor recreation within his yard, use of the least restrictive monitoring device, and travel for necessary medical appointments; it denied a church attendance request.
The circuit court rejected Elder’s ineffective assistance claims under Miller and denied habeas relief on those grounds.
Elder sought immediate release arguing deterioration from Parkinson’s disease; the circuit court declined to modify the sentence to probation or grant full release.
On appeal, the West Virginia Supreme Court held that home incarceration constitutes “incarceration” for habeas purposes and affirmed denial of habeas relief, including the church attendance denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether home incarceration constitutes incarceration for habeas relief	Elder argues home confinement is sufficiently restraining to warrant habeas relief.	Scolapia contends home confinement is not incarceration under habeas statutes.	Yes; home incarceration is incarceration for habeas purposes.
Appropriateness of the ineffective assistance claims under Miller	Dyer provided ineffective assistance by failing to file an appeal or timely file a motion.	Dyer acted reasonably; no deficient performance or prejudice established.	Claims fail under Miller standard; no relief.
Whether the motion to modify terms of home incarceration was properly denied or improperly treated as habeas relief	Petitioner framed request as habeas relief for sentencing/modification; sought broader relief.	Relief and modifications were discretionary adjustments within the home incarceration order, not habeas relief.	No error; denial aligned with proper habeas scope.
Whether Elder's religious freedom claim was properly evaluated against child-protection concerns	The statute requires attendance rights to be automatic under exceptions to confinement.	Court balanced religious exercise against child-protection and safety concerns; denial upheld.	Trial court properly weighed interests; no violation found.

Mathena v. Haines, 219 W.Va. 417 (2006) (three-prong habeas review: abuse of discretion, clearly erroneous factual findings, de novo law)
State v. Miller, 194 W.Va. 3 (1995) (two-pronged ineffective assistance standard; Miller syl. pt. 5)
Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 (1963) (habeas 'in custody' trigger extends to significant restraints on liberty)
State ex rel. Merrifield, 191 W.Va. 473 (1994) (incarceration meaning in probation/good time context; confinement distinction)
State v. Lewis, 195 W.Va. 282 (1995) (home incarceration not the same as actual confinement for probation purposes)