Jason Payne v. David Ballard, Warden, 16-0340

Jason Payne was investigated in connection with the 2006 murder of Keese Bare; human remains from a fire pit were forensically identified as Bare.
Payne was convicted in 2007 of multiple property offenses (breaking and entering, grand larceny, misdemeanor destruction of property) and in a separate trial of second-degree murder; sentences were ordered consecutively, including recidivist enhancements.
Payne’s direct appeals were resolved by this Court in 2012, affirming the convictions in memorandum decisions.
In November 2012 Payne filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel and several trial errors (jury instruction on “duty,” directed verdict, suppression of statements, Brady disclosure issues, cumulative error).
The Morgan County Circuit Court denied habeas relief in a detailed March 15, 2016 order without holding an omnibus evidentiary hearing, finding the grounds unsupported or finally adjudicated.
Payne appealed; this Court affirmed, holding the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition without a hearing.

Issue	Payne's Argument	Ballard's Argument	Held
Whether Payne was entitled to an omnibus evidentiary hearing	The petition and attachments showed probable cause entitling Payne to a hearing under W.Va. Code §53-4A-7(a)	The petition and record showed Payne was not entitled to relief; summary denial without hearing was proper	Denied: circuit court properly found the petition and records showed no entitlement to relief and need not hold a hearing
Ineffective assistance of trial counsel	Counsel’s performance at trial was ineffective and deprived Payne of a fair trial	Trial record and circuit court findings show no meritorious ineffective-assistance claim	Denied: no abuse of discretion in rejecting the ineffective assistance claim
Trial errors (jury instruction on “duty”; failure to direct verdict; admission of evidence; suppression of statements)	These alleged trial errors individually warranted relief or a new trial	Issues were previously adjudicated on direct appeal or unsupported by the record	Denied: circuit court’s findings adopt prior adjudications and the record provides no basis for relief
Brady/exculpatory evidence disclosure	State failed to produce phone records likely containing exculpatory evidence	Record does not support a Brady violation; matters were previously litigated or unsupported	Denied: no showing of undisclosed material exculpatory evidence

Mathena v. Haines, 219 W.Va. 417 (2006) (sets three-prong standard of review for habeas corpus appeals)
State ex rel. Franklin v. McBride, 226 W.Va. 375 (2009) (addresses appellate review standards in habeas matters)
Perdue v. Coiner, 156 W.Va. 467 (1973) (circuit court may deny habeas without hearing if petition and records show petitioner entitled to no relief)