Edgar F.. v. David Ballard, Warden, 15-1210

Petitioner (identified as Edgar F.) was convicted in 2002 of one count of first-degree sexual abuse and three counts of sexual abuse by a custodian under W. Va. Code § 61-8D-5; original sentences were later corrected to 5–15 years for the custodian counts; sentences were ordered consecutive.
Petitioner pursued multiple habeas petitions: initial 2010 petition denied (affirmed on appeal with directions to address ten overlooked grounds), a 2012 circuit-court ruling denied those ten grounds (affirmed by this Court in 2013), and a 2014 habeas petition alleging ineffective appellate counsel was denied and affirmed in 2015.
In July 2015 petitioner filed the instant habeas petition challenging the constitutionality of § 61-8D-5 on multiple grounds: double jeopardy, lack of notice/vagueness, disproportionate sentencing, and defects in the statute’s title.
The circuit court denied the 2015 petition as frivolous and without merit; the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed on October 28, 2016, adopting prior reasoning and concluding no hearing or appointment of counsel was required.
The Court found Martinez v. Ryan inapplicable because petitioner did not raise the same ineffective-assistance-of-habeas-counsel claim addressed in Martinez; many of petitioner’s arguments were foreclosed by prior West Virginia decisions, especially State v. Gill.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 61-8D-5 violates double jeopardy by allowing multiple punishments	Edgar argued § 61-8D-5 functions as an enhancement/companion charge leading to multiple punishments	State argued § 61-8D-5 is a separate, distinct offense and multiple convictions are permissible	Held: Rejected; § 61-8D-5 is a distinct crime (Gill controls)
Whether § 61-8D-5 is unconstitutionally vague/lacks notice	Edgar argued he lacked fair notice that his conduct was criminal under § 61-8D-5	State relied on precedent finding adequate notice for the statute	Held: Rejected; prior cases (e.g., Cook) foreclose vagueness/notice challenge
Whether sentences under § 61-8D-5 are disproportionately severe	Edgar argued his sentences were unconstitutionally disproportionate	State argued sentences complied with statute and prior proportionality rulings	Held: Rejected; proportionality challenges previously denied (Edgar F. II; Cook)
Whether the statute title violated WV Const. Art. VI, § 30 by omitting reference to "child"	Edgar argued the title’s omission rendered the statute unconstitutional	State argued the title expressed the principal object and any auxiliary language was germane	Held: Rejected; title omission was not unconstitutional under Bosely framework

Mathena v. Haines, 219 W. Va. 417, 633 S.E.2d 771 (establishing standard of review in habeas appeals)
Perdue v. Coiner, 156 W. Va. 467, 194 S.E.2d 657 (circuit court may deny habeas without hearing or counsel when petition shows no relief)
Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (ineffective assistance of initial postconviction counsel may excuse procedural default in federal habeas)
State v. Cook, 228 W. Va. 563, 723 S.E.2d 388 (rejecting notice and proportionality challenges to § 61-8D-5)
State v. Gill, 187 W. Va. 136, 416 S.E.2d 253 (holding § 61-8D-5 is a separate and distinct crime)
State ex rel. City of Charleston v. Bosely, 165 W. Va. 332, 268 S.E.2d 590 (statutory title adequate when it expresses the principal object and incidental matters are germane)