Ronald W. Holcomb v. David Ballard, Warden
16-1176
| W. Va. | Oct 23, 2017Background:
- Ronald W. Holcomb was convicted (jury) of second-degree murder and death of a child by a parent by child abuse in 2007 and sentenced to consecutive 40-year terms.
- Holcomb filed a pro se habeas petition in 2012; amended petition (with counsel) filed in 2014 raising multiple grounds including denial of independent DNA testing and ineffective assistance of trial and habeas counsel.
- At habeas evidentiary hearing, defense counsel testified that a timeline expert initially consulted later changed his opinion and would have implicated Holcomb, not exculpated him; no additional evidence was submitted during an allotted 90-day leave to reopen.
- Circuit court denied the amended habeas petition (Oct. 6, 2015), finding no deficiency in preserving DNA testing materials, no obstruction to meaningful cross-examination, and that counsel reasonably declined a diminished-capacity defense given psychological evaluations and Holcomb’s wishes.
- Holcomb appealed, seeking remand for further development on DNA testing, trial counsel strategy (diminished capacity), and failure to develop mental-state evidence at the habeas level.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of independent DNA testing | Holcomb: circuit court erred by refusing independent testing and record development | Warden: State preserved materials; Holcomb not prevented from meaningful examination; defense expert reviewed evidence | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; Holcomb failed to show prejudice or record error |
| Trial counsel ineffective for refusing diminished-capacity defense | Holcomb: counsel should have presented diminished-capacity contrary to his expressed wishes | Warden: Holcomb refused that defense; three experts found no lack of criminal responsibility; strategy reasonable | Affirmed — Strickland not met; counsel’s strategy reasonable and aligned with Holcomb’s wishes |
| Habeas counsel ineffective for failing to develop mental-state evidence in 90-day window | Holcomb: record not developed; remand needed to explain failure | Warden: no developed record; appellate court should not remand without authority or developed record | Denied — issues not developed below; no authority or record to justify remand |
| Request to remand for further fact-finding generally | Holcomb: remand to allow circuit court to review/examine evidence further | Warden: appellate review requires developed record; petitioner bears burden to develop record | Denied — petitioner failed to identify specific error or cite authority for remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathena v. Haines, 219 W.Va. 417, 633 S.E.2d 771 (W. Va. 2006) (three-prong standard of review for habeas appeals)
- State ex rel. Franklin v. McBride, 226 W.Va. 375, 701 S.E.2d 97 (W. Va. 2009) (appellate standard citation supporting review framework)
- State v. Miller, 194 W.Va. 3, 459 S.E.2d 114 (W. Va. 1995) (adopting Strickland two-pronged ineffective assistance test)
- State v. LaRock, 196 W.Va. 294, 470 S.E.2d 613 (W. Va. 1996) (deference to counsel’s reasonable strategic choices)
- State v. Hughes, 225 W.Va. 218, 691 S.E.2d 813 (W. Va. 2010) (appellate refusal to consider issues raised first on appeal)
- Holcomb v. Sadler, 222 W.Va. 32, 658 S.E.2d 562 (W. Va. 2008) (prior prohibition action regarding pretrial DNA testing was premature)