Kurt M. Ray v. Karen Pszczolkowski, Warden, 16-0022

In January 2008 Ray entered his ex‑girlfriend’s home, forced her to leave with him, and was later arrested; the victim was injured and taken to a hospital.
Ray was indicted on multiple counts including burglary, wanton endangerment, assault during a felony, kidnapping, threats to kidnap, and two counts of sexual assault; the sexual‑assault counts were later dismissed under a plea agreement.
On March 18, 2009 Ray pled guilty to burglary, wanton endangerment, assault during a felony, kidnapping, and threats to kidnap; sentencing was left to the court, with the State allowed to argue for a 30‑year parole ineligibility aggregate sentence.
At sentencing (April 24, 2009) victims and witnesses spoke; the court allowed a nurse to give a statement but barred questioning; Ray received consecutive terms including life with parole eligibility after ten years for kidnapping and 20 years for threats to kidnap.
Ray’s direct appeal was refused. He filed an amended habeas petition raising incompetence/coercion at plea, excessive/unexpected sentence, double jeopardy (kidnapping vs. threats), confrontation right at sentencing, and multiple ineffective‑assistance claims; the circuit court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, and Ray appealed.
The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the record (plea/sentencing transcripts and filings) sufficed to decide the habeas claims and adopting the circuit court’s order denying relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on habeas claims	Ray: Record insufficient; hearing needed to resolve credibility and ineffective‑assistance allegations	Warden: Record (transcripts, filings) is sufficient to resolve claims without hearing	Court: No hearing required; record sufficed to adjudicate habeas petition
Competency / involuntary plea due to intoxication or coercion	Ray: Intoxicated, depressed, coerced into pleading; counsel pressured him	Warden: Plea colloquy and record show Ray understood rights and plea was voluntary	Court: Plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent; incompetency/coercion claims rejected
Ineffective assistance of trial counsel (various subclaims)	Ray: Counsel failed to raise intoxication, depression, correct presentence report, present witnesses, and misadvised about parole/probation	Warden: Counsel’s performance was adequate; record does not support prejudice or deficient performance	Court: Circuit court’s conclusions rejecting ineffective‑assistance claims adopted; no relief granted
Sentencing issues (excessive/unexpected sentence; double jeopardy)	Ray: Sentence harsher than expected; challenge to convictions for both kidnapping and threats to kidnap	Warden: Sentencing within court’s discretion; double jeopardy not shown	Court: Sentences upheld; double jeopardy and excessiveness claims denied

Mathena v. Haines, 219 W.Va. 417, 633 S.E.2d 771 (2006) (standard of review for habeas appeals: abuse of discretion for disposition, clearly erroneous for facts, de novo for law)
Perdue v. Coiner, 156 W.Va. 467, 194 S.E.2d 657 (1973) (habeas petitions may be denied without a hearing when the record shows petitioner is entitled to no relief)
Losh v. McKenzie, 166 W.Va. 762, 277 S.E.2d 606 (1981) (requirements for Losh checklist identifying waived grounds)
Sands v. Sec. Trust Co., 143 W.Va. 522, 102 S.E.2d 733 (1958) (appellate courts will not decide non‑jurisdictional questions not decided below)