Raymond Pratt v. David Ballard, Warden, 238 W. Va. 184

Raymond Pratt was convicted in 1976 in Marion County of armed robbery and sentenced to life "with mercy" (parole eligible after 10 years); the original sentencing record did not state reasons for imposing life.
After multiple resentencings and collateral proceedings, this Court in Pratt v. Holland directed the circuit court to place reasons for the life sentence on the record per State v. Houston.
Pratt was paroled in 1986, later convicted in Pennsylvania of murder (initial conviction reversed; pled to third-degree murder), served a Pennsylvania sentence, and had his West Virginia parole revoked upon return.
In 2007 the West Virginia Parole Board, relying on a DOC memorandum, concluded Pennsylvania third-degree murder has the "same essential elements" as West Virginia second-degree murder and declared Pratt ineligible for further parole under W.Va. Code § 62-12-19(c).
Pratt filed a 2012 habeas petition challenging (1) that the circuit court improperly relied on his later Pennsylvania murder conviction as a rationale for the original life sentence and (2) that he was denied due process because he was not given a hearing before the Parole Board to contest the statutory comparison.
The habeas court held a Houston/Pratt hearing, reimposed the life-with-mercy sentence based on historical factors (severity, prior violent offenses, community sentiment), and rejected Pratt's due process challenge; the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the habeas court impermissibly relied on Pratt's later Pennsylvania murder conviction in explaining the 1976 life sentence	Pratt: The Pennsylvania murder conviction occurred after the armed robbery and thus cannot be a basis for the original life sentence	State/Habeas court: The murder conviction was considered only for parole eligibility and not as a reason for the original life sentence; circuit court set independent reasons consistent with Houston/Pratt	Held: No error — the Pennsylvania conviction was not used to justify the 1976 sentence; the court placed valid reasons on the record and reimposed life with mercy within discretion
Whether Pratt was denied due process by not being allowed to contest the DOC memorandum before the Parole Board comparing murder statutes	Pratt: Denial of an opportunity to appear and contest the statutory comparison violated his right to be heard	State/Habeas court: The issue was a legal question about statutory elements; Pratt was given the opportunity to brief the issue in habeas and conceded the statutes are essentially the same; Board acted within statute	Held: No due process violation — Pratt had post-revocation processes and conceded that an appearance would not have changed the outcome; the statutory comparison rendered him ineligible for further parole

Mathena v. Haines, 219 W.Va. 417, 633 S.E.2d 771 (2006) (standard of review for habeas findings: abuse of discretion for disposition, clearly erroneous for facts, de novo for law)
State v. Lucas, 201 W.Va. 271, 496 S.E.2d 221 (1997) (sentencing orders reviewed under abuse of discretion absent statutory/constitutional violation)
State v. Houston, 166 W.Va. 202, 273 S.E.2d 375 (1980) (remand required where record lacks factual basis for sentence; court must place reasons on record)
Pratt v. Holland, 175 W.Va. 756, 338 S.E.2d 236 (1985) (directed circuit court to develop reasons for Pratt's life sentence)
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (parole revocation entitles parolee to limited due process, including an opportunity to be heard)