Patrick J. Meckling v. Marvin Plumley, Warden
16-0608
| W. Va. | Jun 2, 2017Background
- On July 13–14, 2007 petitioner Patrick Meckling assaulted and abducted his girlfriend; she later reported injuries and sought a domestic violence protective order; Meckling was indicted for abduction with intent to defile and malicious assault (convicted of abduction and misdemeanor battery).
- After trial (October 29, 2007) jury convictions, the State filed a recidivist information; Meckling admitted two prior felonies but challenged a life recidivist sentence as disproportionate; circuit court sentenced him to life on March 20, 2008.
- Meckling’s direct appeal was refused. He filed post-conviction habeas claims including coerced testimony/recantation, ineffective assistance, and proportionality of the recidivist sentence; the circuit court granted habeas relief in 2014 vacating sentence and ordering a new trial.
- This Court reversed that 2014 habeas grant in Meckling (Ballard ex rel. Mount Olive Correctional Center v. Meckling), holding a juror’s brief view of a defendant in handcuffs was not reversible error; the circuit court later ruled on reserved issues and denied relief on proportionality and recantation.
- Meckling filed the instant (May 2, 2016) habeas petition repeating claims (insufficient evidence, coerced/recanted testimony, trial counsel ineffective, recidivist sentence disproportionate); the circuit court denied it as previously adjudicated or waived and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Meckling's Argument | Plumley/Warden's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether habeas claims (insufficient evidence; coerced/recanted testimony; ineffective trial counsel; disproportionality of recidivist sentence) are procedurally barred | Meckling contends these issues remain unresolved and entitle him to relief | Respondent argues res judicata bars successive habeas after an omnibus proceeding; prior habeas adjudicated these issues | Court held res judicata applies; prior proceeding qualified as omnibus and issues were previously adjudicated or waived; denied relief |
| Whether prior habeas proceeding here qualified as an "omnibus" proceeding for Losh res judicata rule | Meckling implied prior process was incomplete because no evidentiary hearing occurred | Respondent argued the prior proceeding functionally resulted in full adjudication (including a grant of relief later reversed) and thus qualifies | Court found the prior proceeding qualified as omnibus under Losh for res judicata purposes |
| Whether Meckling could raise ineffective assistance of habeas counsel exception to res judicata | Meckling did not assert ineffective assistance of habeas counsel in this petition | Respondent noted Losh allows successive petition when habeas counsel was ineffective, but no such claim was raised | Court noted the exception exists but Meckling did not invoke it; not considered here |
| Whether circuit court abused discretion in denying the instant habeas petition | Meckling argued the court should reach the merits of his claims | Respondent argued denial was proper because claims were previously decided or waived | Court applied abuse-of-discretion standard and affirmed denial based on res judicata |
Key Cases Cited
- Losh v. McKenzie, 166 W.Va. 762 (establishes that res judicata bars successive habeas petitions after an omnibus proceeding)
- Mathena v. Haines, 219 W.Va. 417 (sets standard of review for habeas appeals)
- State v. Frazier, 162 W.Va. 935 (defines standard for new trial based on newly discovered evidence)
- Ballard ex rel. Mount Olive Correctional Center v. Meckling, 235 W.Va. 109 (reversed circuit court’s grant of habeas relief regarding juror viewing a handcuffed defendant)