Ray P. v. David Ballard, Warden, 16-1094

Background

Ray P. was indicted (2008) on two counts of sexual abuse by a parent/guardian/custodian and two counts of incest; he underwent a forensic psychological evaluation that found competency but noted cognitive limitations and suggested simpler explanations and repetition.
Ray pleaded guilty to two sexual abuse counts in exchange for dismissal of the two incest counts; the State recommended concurrent sentences but the court imposed consecutive indeterminate terms of 10–20 years on each count (total exposure greater than anticipated by Ray).
Trial counsel did not file a direct appeal; Ray later sought habeas relief (filed 2013), alleging ineffective assistance (multiple bases), an involuntary plea, excessive sentence, and insufficient factual basis for the plea.
At the habeas evidentiary hearing, record showed counsel explained the plea thoroughly on the record, Ray admitted the conduct at plea and before indictment, the psychological evaluator found Ray competent, and the victim testified she never recanted.
The circuit court denied habeas relief (Oct. 31, 2016); the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed by memorandum decision (Oct. 23, 2017).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Ray)	Defendant's Argument (Warden/State)	Held
Ineffective assistance — insufficient time/investigation	Counsel billed little time and didn’t interview a recantation witness; counsel’s representation was deficient	Counsel had additional unbilled work, handled related abuse/neglect proceeding, and Ray decided to seek a plea after eldest daughter said she would testify	No ineffective assistance; court found counsel’s time and investigation reasonable under the circumstances
Ineffective assistance — failure to file appeal	Counsel failed to perfect an appeal; Ray lost appellate rights	Counsel provided notice packet and instructions; Ray did not notify court or pursue appeal; voluntariness of plea was the only appellate issue and plea was voluntary	No prejudice shown; court found no basis that appeal would have succeeded
Ineffective assistance / involuntary plea — poor advisement re parole/probation and comprehension	Counsel didn’t adequately explain plea terms given Ray’s cognitive limits; Ray believed probation/alternative sentencing was likely	Record shows counsel and court explained plea, penalties, and that court was not bound by recommendations; psychological report considered and court found Ray competent and understanding	Plea was voluntary and intelligent; no ineffective assistance shown regarding advisement
Excessive sentence / insufficient factual basis	Ray expected alternative sentence; victim recanted to others so factual basis lacking	Sentence within statutory limits and not based on impermissible factors; Ray admitted conduct pre-indictment and at plea; victim testified she did not recant	Sentence not reviewable (within statutory limits); sufficient factual basis existed for plea

Key Cases Cited

Mathena v. Haines, 219 W.Va. 417 (review standard in habeas corpus appeals)
State ex rel. Franklin v. McBride, 226 W.Va. 375 (procedure for appellate review)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑pronged ineffective assistance standard)
State v. Miller, 194 W.Va. 3 (applying Strickland in West Virginia)
State ex rel. Vernatter v. Warden, W.Va. Penitentiary, 207 W.Va. 11 (prejudice standard when conviction follows guilty plea)
State v. Merritt, 183 W.Va. 601 (appointed counsel duties on appeal)
Rhodes v. Leverette, 160 W.Va. 781 (indigent defendant’s responsibility to communicate desire to appeal)
State v. Sims, 162 W.Va. 212 (scope of direct appeal after guilty plea)
State v. Goodnight, 169 W.Va. 366 (sentences within statutory limits not subject to appellate review)