Jason Rea v. Patrick A. Mirandy, Warden, 16-0542

In 2006 Jason Rea stabbed Brian Stratton (37 times) and Stratton’s grandmother; indicted on multiple counts including attempted first-degree murder, malicious wounding, and burglary.
In September 2007 Rea entered guilty and nolo contendere pleas after a plea colloquy in which the court and Rea discussed minimum and maximum terms for each count. The court asked whether Rea knew the maximum possible sentence; Rea answered yes and recited the ranges for each count.
In February 2008 Rea was sentenced to consecutive terms resulting in a cumulative 12 to 80 year sentence; resentenced in 2011 and that sentence was affirmed on appeal.
Rea later filed an ethics complaint and signed documents stating his trial counsel had warned him he could receive the full 12–80 years if convicted at trial.
In January 2015 Rea filed a post-conviction habeas petition alleging (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel (including failure to advise, investigate, or obtain a mental-health evaluation), and (2) a Rule 11 violation because the court did not inform him his sentence could be the cumulative 12–80 years, rendering his plea involuntary.
At an evidentiary hearing Rea and family members testified counsel had not told them the 12–80 exposure and had not investigated or sought a mental evaluation; the circuit court credited Rea’s prior plea-hearing statements and his earlier ethics filings and denied habeas relief; Rea appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Rea)	Defendant's Argument (Warden)	Held
Whether trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective	Counsel failed to advise properly, investigate, obtain mental-health evaluation, meet with Rea, or provide indictment; these deficiencies coerced plea	Record (including Rea’s prior ethics statements and plea colloquy) shows counsel informed Rea of the 12–80 exposure and met adequately; many claims are unsupported	Court affirmed: counsel not ineffective — Rea’s admissions and plea colloquy defeat the claim
Whether plea colloquy violated Rule 11 (failure to advise maximum cumulative exposure/consecutive sentences)	Court did not inform Rea that sentences could be consecutive and cumulative (12–80), so pleas were involuntary	Plea colloquy informed Rea of minimums and maximums for each count; context made cumulative exposure apparent; Rea confirmed understanding	Court affirmed: no Rule 11 violation; plea was voluntary and informed

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-pronged ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
Mathena v. Haines, 219 W. Va. 417, 633 S.E.2d 771 (W. Va. 2006) (standard of review for habeas actions: abuse of discretion for ultimate disposition; clearly erroneous for facts; de novo for law)
Miller v. State, 194 W. Va. 3, 459 S.E.2d 114 (W. Va. 1995) (objective standard for reviewing counsel performance; avoid hindsight/second-guessing)
Bartles v. Hinkle, 196 W. Va. 381, 472 S.E.2d 827 (W. Va. 1996) (trial court credibility findings entitled to special deference)