Dallas Butler v. J.T. Binion, Superintendent, 18-0404

Background

In January 2010 Butler assaulted his ex-wife; he was indicted for malicious assault and kidnapping, convicted by a jury, and sentenced to life with mercy for kidnapping and 4–10 years concurrent for malicious assault.
On direct appeal (Butler I) the West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence to support the convictions, including threats to conceal the crime to evade arrest.
Butler filed a habeas petition (filed 2012; omnibus hearing Oct. 2, 2013). Habeas counsel elected not to put Butler on the stand and relied on the record; the circuit court denied the petition in Feb. 2015.
This Court affirmed the denial on appeal (Butler II), holding res judicata barred re-litigation of issues decided on direct appeal and in the first habeas proceeding.
Butler filed a second habeas petition (June 2017) claiming ineffective assistance of habeas counsel for not having him testify and reasserting multiple claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel; the circuit court denied it April 5, 2018.
The West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed, holding Butler was re-raising previously adjudicated claims, habeas counsel’s tactical choice not to call Butler was reasonable, the record was sufficiently developed, and no hearing or discovery was warranted.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Butler’s second petition impermissibly relitigates ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims barred by res judicata	Butler contends he raised those trial-counsel issues only to show habeas counsel failed to develop the record	State argues issues were previously litigated/decided (Butler I and Butler II) and thus barred	Court held claims were previously adjudicated; relitigation barred by res judicata
Whether habeas counsel was ineffective for not calling Butler to testify at the omnibus hearing	Butler says his testimony was necessary and counsel’s failure was deficient	State says counsel reasonably strategized that Butler’s testimony would be unhelpful; counsel offered to call him if court required	Court held counsel’s strategic decision was not objectively unreasonable under Strickland/Miller and declines hindsight review
Whether habeas counsel/appellate counsel failed to develop the record re: ineffective-trial-counsel claims	Butler argues counsel did not elicit necessary testimony/evidence	State points to the omnibus hearing record (including trial counsel testimony) and full briefing on claims	Court held the record was sufficiently developed and counsel did not perform deficiently in this regard
Whether the circuit court abused discretion by denying a hearing, discovery, or investigator	Butler sought remand for a hearing and retained investigator	State contends no factual dispute exists warranting further proceedings	Court held no factual dispute that would entitle Butler to relief; denial of hearing and discovery was proper

Key Cases Cited

Anstey v. Ballard, 237 W. Va. 411, 787 S.E.2d 864 (W. Va. 2016) (standard of review for habeas appeals and denial without hearing doctrine)
Losh v. McKenzie, 166 W. Va. 762, 277 S.E.2d 606 (W. Va. 1981) (prior omnibus habeas is res judicata except for ineffective-assistance-of-habeas-counsel claims)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-pronged ineffective-assistance test)
State v. Miller, 194 W. Va. 3, 459 S.E.2d 114 (W. Va. 1995) (adopts Strickland standard in West Virginia)
Perdue v. Coiner, 156 W. Va. 467, 194 S.E.2d 657 (W. Va. 1973) (courts may deny habeas petitions without a hearing when documentary record shows no relief)
State ex rel. Parsons v. Zakaib, 207 W. Va. 385, 532 S.E.2d 654 (W. Va. 2000) (discovery in habeas available only when it would resolve a dispositive factual dispute)
White v. Haines, 215 W. Va. 698, 601 S.E.2d 18 (W. Va. 2004) (reiterating standards for denying habeas without hearing)