Neil W. v. Patrick Mirandy, Warden, 15-1244

In 1998 an Ohio County grand jury indicted petitioner Neil W. on 52 counts of child-sex offenses; he entered into a plea agreement on November 17, 1998, pleading guilty to 14 counts (mix of felonies and misdemeanors) and the court accepted the pleas after a colloquy.
Prior to the plea, counsel had requested a competency evaluation; the written order for evaluation was entered one day after the plea. Counsel told the court he had no real concern about competency.
During the plea colloquy petitioner said he took synthetic thyroid medication at a dosage he believed too low, which made decision‑making slower; the court offered more time if needed and petitioner affirmed he wished to proceed.
Petitioner moved to withdraw his pleas in December 1998, claiming the low medication dosage and medical conditions impaired his ability to understand and make intelligent decisions; a hearing was held and the court denied the motion, finding the pleas voluntary.
Petitioner filed multiple habeas petitions over time; his instant (sixth) habeas petition (filed Nov. 19, 2015) again alleged his guilty pleas were involuntary and unknowingly entered due to his physical/mental conditions. The circuit court denied relief as the claim was previously and finally adjudicated.
On appeal the West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed, holding petitioner’s claim was not a proper change-in-law exception to res judicata and that the voluntariness issue had been finally adjudicated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petitioner’s claim is barred by res judicata / previously adjudicated habeas issues	Neil: His plea was involuntary due to effects of thyroid condition and bradycardia at plea hearing; thus habeas relief is merited now	Warden: The voluntariness claim was litigated and finally adjudicated earlier; res judicata bars relitigation absent an applicable exception	Held: Claim barred—court found the voluntariness issue was previously and finally adjudicated and denied habeas relief
Whether Hatfield v. Ballard (federal decision) is a retroactive favorable change in law excusing res judicata	Neil: Cites Hatfield (federal court ordered relief for inadequate competency proceedings) as a favorable change in law applicable to his case	Warden: Hatfield is distinguishable; petitioner’s claim is not about lack of a competency hearing but about slowed decision‑making from medical conditions already litigated	Held: Hatfield is distinguishable and does not supply the Losh change‑in‑law exception; petitioner’s claim differs from Hatfield and fails

Mathena v. Haines, 219 W.Va. 417, 633 S.E.2d 771 (2006) (standard of review for habeas appeals: abuse of discretion for ultimate disposition, clearly erroneous for factual findings, de novo for questions of law)
Losh v. McKenzie, 166 W.Va. 762, 277 S.E.2d 606 (1981) (prior habeas is res judicata except limited exceptions, including favorable change in law)
Hatfield v. Ballard, 878 F.Supp.2d 633 (S.D. W.Va. 2012) (federal court ordered new trial or discharge based on constitutionally inadequate competency hearing)
State v. Hatfield, 186 W.Va. 507, 413 S.E.2d 162 (1991) (discusses competency evaluation and remand to develop record regarding competency at plea)
Call v. McKenzie, 159 W.Va. 191, 220 S.E.2d 665 (1975) (authority cited for plea voluntariness principles)