Ronald C. v. Ralph Terry, Acting Warden, 16-1190

Background

Petitioner Ronald C. pled guilty to multiple sex offenses (two counts sexual assault by a parent/guardian, one count incest, one count intimidation of a witness) under a plea agreement; other counts were dismissed. Sentencing occurred November 21, 2002.
At sentencing the court heard testimony from the defense-retained sex-offender evaluator (McQuaid) and from S.W.C., a woman who alleged petitioner sexually assaulted her as a minor though she was not a victim of the counts pleaded to. The court found S.W.C.’s testimony relevant to sentencing.
The circuit court imposed consecutive sentences for an aggregate term of 25 to 55 years, rejecting concurrent sentencing because of a risk of reoffense.
Petitioner filed multiple pro se habeas petitions alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (trial and habeas counsel), denial of the right to appeal, and improper admission of S.W.C.’s testimony and sought access to sealed psychological evaluations.
The circuit court dismissed the 2015 habeas petition (Nov. 18, 2016), concluding Rule 404(b) did not apply at sentencing (per Rule 1101(b)(3)), that prior omnibus habeas proceedings precluded relitigation under Losh, and that petitioner offered no adequate basis to access sealed psychological reports.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petitioner’s 2015 habeas petition is barred as successive/res judicata	First habeas was not an omnibus proceeding (Losh checklist missing); thus res judicata shouldn’t bar new claims	First habeas was an omnibus proceeding; Losh res judicata applies	Court: First habeas was omnibus (order contained required notation); res judicata bars reassertion except limited exceptions
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to prevent S.W.C.’s testimony at sentencing	Counsel should have excluded S.W.C. because Rule 32(f)(1) excludes her as a “victim” and Rule 404(b) prohibits prior-bad-act evidence	Sentencing hearings are exempt from Rules of Evidence under Rule 1101(b)(3); counsel objected on Rule 32 ground; testimony was relevant to sentencing	Court: No ineffective assistance—admission of S.W.C.’s testimony was within discretion, Rule 404(b) inapplicable at sentencing, and counsel litigated the objection
Whether habeas counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the Rule 404(b) objection on habeas review	Habeas counsel should have challenged admission based on Rule 404(b)	Rule 404(b) not applicable at sentencing; issue was or could have been raised earlier; habeas counsel’s performance was adequate	Court: Habeas counsel not ineffective; the argument lacks merit because evidentiary rules don’t govern sentencing in that way
Whether petitioner was entitled to access sealed psychological evaluations	Petitioner claimed need to review evaluations (vague assertions, alleged medical report exculpating a victim)	Circuit court limited access because reports contain graphic depictions of children and set conditions for release to counsel; petitioner failed to demonstrate compliance or justification	Court: Declined to reach merits due to inadequate briefing and record pointers; dismissal without hearing affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Kennedy v. Frazier, 178 W.Va. 10 (1986) (plea of guilty may be accepted despite claim of innocence when defendant intelligently concludes plea is in his interest)
Anstey v. Ballard, 237 W.Va. 411 (2016) (standards for denying habeas without hearing; reliance on Perdue/White)
Mathena v. Haines, 219 W.Va. 417 (2006) (standard of review in habeas appeals: abuse of discretion for ultimate disposition; clearly erroneous for facts; de novo for law)
Losh v. McKenzie, 166 W.Va. 762 (1981) (requirements for omnibus habeas and res judicata effect; exceptions for ineffective counsel at omnibus, new evidence, or change in law)
State v. Miller, 194 W.Va. 3 (1995) (Strickland governs ineffective-assistance claims)
Perdue v. Coiner, 156 W.Va. 467 (1973) (habeas may be dismissed without hearing when record shows petitioner entitled to no relief)
State ex rel. Dunlap v. McBride, 225 W.Va. 192 (2010) (Rules of Evidence generally do not apply to sentencing; trial court has broad discretion in sentencing evidence)