Ronnie R. v. David Ballard, Warden, 16-0565

Background

Petitioner Ronnie R. was convicted in 1992 of multiple sexual-assault and child-sex-abuse counts; he later was convicted in 1996 of additional sexual-assault-related charges after a bench trial.
Ronnie R. pursued multiple post-conviction habeas petitions: a first petition (denied and affirmed on appeal), a second petition (denied after an evidentiary hearing and affirmed on appeal), and a third petition filed April 1, 2013.
The circuit court denied the third petition on May 16, 2016, without an evidentiary hearing, concluding the claims re-litigated previously resolved issues, failed to state cognizable constitutional claims, and lacked proof.
Ronnie R. appealed, arguing the circuit court abused its discretion by not holding an evidentiary hearing—particularly as to ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims—and asked this Court to apply Boggs v. Nohe as supportive authority.
The Supreme Court of Appeals applied its standard of review for habeas rulings, found no substantial question of law, and affirmed the circuit court: the claims were successive/re-litigated or meritless and did not require a new evidentiary hearing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing on the third habeas petition	Ronnie R. argued the court should have held a hearing to develop and evaluate his ineffective-assistance claims	The Warden argued the court properly denied a hearing because claims were previously litigated, meritless, or could have been raised earlier	Court held no abuse of discretion; denial without hearing was appropriate because claims were successive or lacked merit
Whether petitioner’s ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims required factfinding at a hearing	Ronnie R. asserted counsel failed to raise/ develop issues at trial and failed to retain an expert	Respondent argued the record and prior proceedings sufficiently developed facts and claims were either raised or could have been raised earlier	Court held claims did not warrant further factual development; they were previously addressed or conclusory
Whether ineffective assistance of habeas counsel warranted relief or a hearing	Ronnie R. contended prior habeas counsel failed to address shortcomings in earlier proceedings	Respondent maintained those allegations were raised without adequate specificity and did not show a constitutional violation	Court held petitioner failed to rebut findings; habeas-counsel claims were meritless or insufficiently pleaded
Whether Boggs v. Nohe compels remand for a hearing here	Ronnie R. urged reliance on Boggs (remanding for hearing on IAC claims)	Respondent distinguished Boggs because that was a first habeas petition with potentially meritorious claims; Ronnie R. had prior hearings and appeals	Court held Boggs distinguishable and not controlling; different procedural posture justified no remand

Key Cases Cited

Mathena v. Haines, 219 W.Va. 417 (W.Va. 2006) (standard of review for habeas corpus appeals)
State ex rel. Franklin v. McBride, 226 W.Va. 375 (W.Va. 2009) (procedural principles for habeas review)
Perdue v. Coiner, 156 W.Va. 467 (W.Va. 1973) (court may deny habeas petition without a hearing if record shows no entitlement to relief)
Gibson v. Dale, 173 W.Va. 681 (W.Va. 1984) (trial court has discretion whether to conduct evidentiary hearings in post-conviction habeas proceedings)
Ronnie R. v. Trent, 194 W.Va. 364 (W.Va. 1995) (appellate decision affirming petitioner’s earlier habeas denial)
State v. R., 199 W.Va. 660 (W.Va. 1997) (appellate decision affirming petitioner’s 1996 conviction)