Harry G. v. Patrick Mirandy, Warden, 16-0945

Petitioner Harry G. was indicted on one count of sexual abuse by a person in a position of trust and seven counts of incest; he pled guilty to four counts of incest under a plea agreement.
The plea agreement provided that the State would dismiss one count, not re‑indict on previously dismissed counts, and "will not object to Defendant’s request for home confinement."
At sentencing the prosecutor initially recommended confinement in the penitentiary, prompting the court and defense to read the plea agreement on the record; the State then clarified it would not object to home confinement and would recommend concurrent sentences.
The court denied home incarceration based on the presentence investigation report and sentenced petitioner to an effective term of 10 to 25 years (through consecutive and concurrent placements of indeterminate sentences).
Petitioner filed a pro se habeas petition, later amended with counsel; on appeal he pressed ineffective assistance (coercion to take the plea) and breach of the plea agreement (State’s initial sentencing recommendation).
The circuit court denied habeas relief; the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the plea voluntary and any initial prosecutorial statement remedied on the record and harmless.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance of counsel — coercion to accept plea	Counsel pressured/ coerced Harry into accepting the plea, so plea involuntary	Counsel informed Harry plea choice was his; plea colloquy and omnibus hearing show voluntariness	Court: No deficient performance; plea voluntary; factual findings not clearly erroneous
Breach of plea agreement — State recommended incarceration at sentencing	State breached by initially recommending penitentiary confinement contrary to agreement not to oppose home confinement	State corrected position on record and did not object to home confinement; court aware of agreement	Court: Any breach was remedied on record; no reasonable possibility it affected sentence; harmless error

Mathena v. Haines, 219 W.Va. 417, 633 S.E.2d 771 (W. Va. 2006) (standard of review for habeas findings and disposition)
State ex rel. Franklin v. McBride, 226 W.Va. 375, 701 S.E.2d 97 (W. Va. 2009) (framework for appellate review of habeas appeals)
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) (adoption of Strickland standard in West Virginia)
State v. Wilson, 237 W.Va. 288, 787 S.E.2d 559 (W. Va. 2016) (standards for reviewing alleged plea‑agreement breaches)
State v. Martin, 225 W.Va. 408, 693 S.E.2d 482 (W. Va. 2010) (prosecutorial breach where State recommended denial of probation despite agreement)
State v. Myers, 204 W.Va. 449, 513 S.E.2d 676 (W. Va. 1998) (prosecutorial breach arguing for a more severe sentence than agreement)
State v. Frazier, 229 W.Va. 724, 735 S.E.2d 727 (W. Va. 2012) (harmless‑error articulation for constitutional violations)