Jeremy Lyle Shultz v. David Ballard, Warden, 16-0934

Background

In April 2010 petitioner Jeremy Lyle Shultz was identified by a delivery-driver victim and later convicted by a jury of kidnapping, first-degree robbery, and conspiracy related to the theft of pharmaceuticals.
Evidence included the victim’s photographic lineup ID (one day after the crime), testimony about petitioner’s exposed face and visible tattoos, recovered drug containers and ointments at a hillside, and admissions by a co-defendant (James Gravely) to police; Gravely and another co-defendant pled guilty.
At trial petitioner testified, presented alibi witnesses (one subpoenaed witness left sick), and called Dr. David Clayman to testify about eyewitness identification; Clayman’s testimony was not fully favorable to petitioner.
Trial counsel did not object to introduction of petitioner’s prior conviction/parole status, allowed display of petitioner’s tattoo/identification bracelet, and made strategic choices about witnesses and expert use.
Petitioner’s direct appeal affirmed convictions and sentence. He later filed a habeas petition alleging multiple instances of ineffective assistance, admission of prejudicial evidence, failure to call an alibi, failure to properly use/explain impeachment evidence, Miranda-silence comment, inadequate voir dire, and an Apprendi/sentencing claim.
The circuit court denied habeas relief after an omnibus hearing; the West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed, adopting the circuit court’s findings and concluding no prejudicial error or legal question meriting reversal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Trial counsel ineffective for eliciting/introducing petitioner’s prior felony conviction and parole status	Shultz: counsel’s presentation of prior conviction/parole and related evidence prejudiced jury and constituted ineffective assistance	State: counsel reasonably used a strategy that emphasized prosecutor’s own evidence and petitioner’s motive to avoid parole jeopardy; disclosure was strategic and not prejudicial	Denied—court adopted circuit court finding that counsel’s choices were strategic and not an abuse of discretion or clearly erroneous
Ineffective assistance for failure to present subpoenaed alibi witness (Paul Martin)	Shultz: Martin’s testimony would have supported alibi and shown petitioner was in Columbus until early morning, undermining identification	State: counsel testified that petitioner consented to proceed without Martin rather than seek a continuance; strategic decision	Denied—court found counsel’s decision reasonable and Martin’s failure to testify did not establish prejudice
Failure to object to display of tattoo/ID bracelet and comment on petitioner’s post-arrest silence / failure to seek Caudill instruction re co-defendant plea	Shultz: display and comments were prejudicial; counsel should have objected and requested limiting/instructional guidance on co-defendant plea evidence	State: counsel adopted a strategy of openness to show petitioner had nothing to hide; no coercive or improper prosecutor conduct shown; Caudill instruction not required or would not change outcome	Denied—court found no reversible error and no ineffective assistance based on these rulings/omissions
Apprendi and sentencing mitigating-factor claims / prior adjudication of sentencing issues	Shultz: alleged Apprendi violation and error in weighing statutory mitigating sentencing factors	State: Apprendi argument contradicts existing West Virginia case law; sentencing/mitigation claims were previously litigated on direct appeal	Denied—court held the sentencing/mitigation claims were previously adjudicated and Apprendi claim had no controlling authority to afford relief

Key Cases Cited

Mathena v. Haines, 219 W.Va. 417, 633 S.E.2d 771 (W. Va. 2006) (standard of review for habeas appeals: abuse of discretion for ultimate disposition, clearly erroneous for facts, de novo for legal questions)
State v. Caudill, 170 W.Va. 74, 289 S.E.2d 748 (W. Va. 1982) (instructions regarding weight to give to co-defendant guilty plea or plea-based impeachment)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (holding facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to jury)