765 S.E.2d 583
W. Va.2014Background
- Petitioner Roger E. Cline was convicted of first-degree murder in 1992 and sentenced to life with mercy; direct appeal denied.
- Cline filed a habeas petition in 1995 and another amended petition in 2012; the case protracted with multiple attorneys.
- An omnibus habeas hearing was scheduled for October 3, 2013, prior to merits; the matter was stayed pending counsel change.
- On June 6, 2013, Cline was paroled with standard parole restrictions and a prohibition on Greenbrier County contact with victims and co-defendants.
- Respondent moved to dismiss the petition as moot because Cline was released from incarceration during the pendency of the action.
- The circuit court dismissed the petition as moot on November 7, 2013, holding Cline was no longer incarcerated and had obtained relief sought.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parole means incarceration for habeas purposes | Cline argues parole constitutes custody in loco and preserves jurisdiction under §53-4A-1(a). | Respondent contends parole is not incarceration; §53-4A-1(a) requires imprisonment, not custody. | Parole does not constitute incarceration; habeas relief is moot when released. |
| Whether the petition was moot after parole release | Because of ongoing parole restrictions, relief could still be warranted to challenge confinement conditions. | Once released from incarceration, the action is moot under controlling WV law. | Petition moot; court affirmed dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Richey v. Hill, 216 W.Va. 155 (2004) (establishes jurisdictional basis for habeas: incarcerated under sentence)
- Adams v. Circuit Court of Randolph Co., 173 W.Va. 448 (1984) (intent of Post-Conviction Habeas Act to liberalize relief)
- State ex rel. Medley v. Skeen, 138 W.Va. 409 (1953) (habeas is proper method to test legality of confinement)
- State ex rel. McCabe v. Seifert, 220 W.Va. 79 (2006) (release from incarceration can render appeal moot depending on circumstances)
- Elder v. Scolapia, 230 W.Va. 422 (2013) (distinguishes home confinement from mere incarceration for habeas purposes)
- Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 (1963) (parole restrictions can constitute custody under federal statute)
- Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) (Suspension Clause and habeas rights in detention contexts)
- Kemp v. State, 203 W.Va. 1 (1997) (habeas relief moot upon release prior to argument; caution on applicability)