Jared M. Iseli v. Donnie Ames
20-0094
| W. Va. | Jun 23, 2021Background
- Jared Michael Iseli (age 20 at the time) was indicted on two counts of first‑degree sexual assault for two incidents involving an 11‑year‑old victim; he pleaded guilty to one count in November 2014.
- At plea allocution Iseli admitted the charged facts but said he believed the victim was 16; the plea was accepted and sentencing was deferred for evaluations.
- Multiple judges were recused; Judge Thomas H. Keadle (senior status) reviewed the file and imposed a 15–35 year sentence under W. Va. Code § 61‑8B‑3(b) (the lesser range), even though § 61‑8B‑3(c) prescribes 25–100 years for defendants 18+ with victims under 12.
- Iseli filed a habeas petition (Oct. 2018) arguing: (1) due process violated because he expected Judge Steptoe (the plea judge) to sentence; (2) sentencing relied on inaccurate/unobjective presentence investigation and victim statement and lacked specific findings; and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to correct these issues.
- The Circuit Court denied relief (Jan. 13, 2020). The West Virginia Supreme Court issued a memorandum decision affirming on June 23, 2021, finding no substantial legal question and holding any error would be harmless because the sentence was mandated by statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Iseli) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process was violated when a different judge (Keadle) sentenced after a plea to Judge Steptoe | Iseli: He entered plea expecting Steptoe to also sentence; replacement judge deprived him of promised sentencing judge | State: No due process violation; Keadle properly reviewed the record and had to impose the statutory term | Affirmed for State — record showed no support for Iseli’s claim; any error harmless because statute mandated the 15–35 year term. |
| Whether the PSI and victim impact statement were inaccurate/unobjective and whether judge failed to make specific factual findings | Iseli: PSI and victim statement were biased/inaccurate and judge failed to ensure accuracy or make specific findings | State: Circuit court reviewed reports; prior memorandum decision addressed accuracy; sentencing was statutorily mandated so factual disputes did not affect outcome | Affirmed — court found no meritorious claim on the record; even if error, harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given mandatory sentence. |
| Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to correct alleged sentencing defects | Iseli: Counsel should have objected, corrected PSI/victim statement issues, or secured sentencing by plea judge | State: Counsel’s actions did not prejudice Iseli because sentencing outcome was fixed by statute | Affirmed — no reversible prejudice shown; statutory mandate foreclosed a different sentencing outcome. |
| Whether the defendant should have been sentenced under § 61‑8B‑3(c) (greater mandatory term for 18+ with victim <12) | Iseli: (implicit) challenges sentencing legality; concurrence noted the statutory question | State: Did not raise issue below; majority declined to decide | Not decided by majority; concurrence urged Court should address whether § 61‑8B‑3(c) is mandatory in all such cases. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathena v. Haines, 219 W. Va. 417 (three‑prong standard of review in habeas: abuse of discretion for ultimate disposition, clearly erroneous for facts, de novo for law)
- Fox v. State, 176 W. Va. 677 (due‑process right to be sentenced on accurate information)
- United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 (sentencing based on inaccurate information can violate due process)
- State v. Craft, 200 W. Va. 496 (recognizing defendant’s right to be sentenced on accurate information)