Johnnie Wills v. Karen Pszczolkowski, 20-0472

Background:

In March 2016 Wills and another person stole property from a residence; a jury convicted Wills of grand larceny and conspiracy to commit grand larceny but acquitted him of burglary and related charges.
The State filed a recidivist information; Wills admitted (Oct. 21, 2016) he was the same person with prior qualifying felony convictions.
On November 10, 2016 Wills received a life sentence with parole eligibility under the West Virginia recidivist statute for grand larceny, plus 1–5 years concurrent for conspiracy; this Court affirmed on direct appeal.
Wills filed a habeas petition (2018); after evidentiary hearings in 2019 the Hampshire County Circuit Court denied relief on May 27, 2020, concluding the recidivist statute was constitutional.
On appeal Wills argued he could invoke the Losh exception for collateral review because of intervening Supreme Court precedent (Sessions/Dimaya) rendering the recidivist statute unconstitutionally vague, and separately argued his life sentence is disproportionate under the West Virginia and Eighth Amendment proportionality standards.
The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting the Dimaya/vagueness argument and finding the State’s recidivist scheme and the Hoyle proportionality test controlling and constitutional.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Wills)	Defendant's Argument (Pszczolkowski)	Held
Whether Wills may relitigate his recidivist sentence in habeas based on an intervening change in law (Losh exception)	Losh permits successive collateral attack where a favorable change in law applies retroactively, so Wills may raise Dimaya/proportionality claims post-appeal	The direct-appeal resolution is generally res judicata; any Losh exception must be narrowly applied; court may nevertheless review the merits	Court considered the claim under Losh and addressed the substantive arguments on their merits
Whether the recidivist statute is unconstitutionally vague under Sessions/Dimaya (residual-clause vagueness)	Dimaya renders statutes using an indefinite "residual clause" void for vagueness; Wills contends the recidivist statute is subject to the same rule and is therefore void	The West Virginia recidivist statute is plain and unambiguous and materially different from the statutes invalidated in Johnson/Dimaya; those precedents do not control	Rejected — court found the recidivist statute clear and prior WV precedent applicable, so Dimaya/Johnson do not invalidate it
Whether Wills’ life recidivist sentence is unconstitutionally disproportionate under Article III, §5 and the Eighth Amendment	Wills contends his triggering offense(s) were nonviolent and thus a life recidivist sentence is disproportionate under Hoyle-derived proportionality analysis	The State argues Hoyle and related WV precedent supply the correct proportionality test and that Wills’ prior convictions satisfy the statutory and Hoyle thresholds	Rejected — court applied Hoyle/Beck framework and found no constitutional disproportionality

Key Cases Cited

Mathena v. Haines, 219 W. Va. 417, 633 S.E.2d 771 (three-prong standard of review in habeas appeals)
Anstey v. Ballard, 237 W. Va. 411, 787 S.E.2d 864 (cited for appellate review principles)
Losh v. McKenzie, 166 W. Va. 762, 277 S.E.2d 606 (permits successive collateral relief when a change in law favorable to petitioner is retroactively applicable)
State v. Hoyle, 242 W. Va. 599, 836 S.E.2d 817 (establishes proportionality analysis for life recidivist sentences)
State v. Beck, 167 W. Va. 830, 286 S.E.2d 234 (requires two of three felonies supporting recidivist life sentence involve violence, threat, or substantial victim harm)
State ex rel. Appleby v. Recht, 213 W. Va. 503, 583 S.E.2d 800 (construed WV recidivist statute as plain and unambiguous)
Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (Supreme Court vagueness precedent relied on by Wills)
Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (residual-clause invalidation referenced in petitioner’s argument)