Rossi A. Gray, Jr. v. David Ballard, Warden, 16-0198

In 2005 Rory A. Gray Jr. was convicted in Ohio County of multiple sexual offenses; a recidivist information sought to upgrade one count to a life sentence based on three prior felony convictions.
Post‑conviction, Gray experienced repeated breakdowns with multiple attorneys (trial, appellate, and habeas counsel), producing delays and contested filings; this history appears in prior appellate and habeas proceedings (Gray I and Gray II).
Gray filed successive habeas petitions challenging jury instructions, the validity of predicate convictions used for recidivist enhancement, proportionality of the life term, and ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, on appeal, and in habeas proceedings.
The circuit court denied Gray’s 2015 habeas petition as previously adjudicated or waived in the earlier habeas proceeding affirmed in Gray II; the court also concluded habeas counsel were not ineffective.
On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeals applied res judicata under Losh to bar all claims that were or could have been raised in the prior omnibus proceeding, but considered ineffective assistance of habeas counsel separately.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Gray's new habeas claims are barred by res judicata	Gray contends some claims were unknown and thus not barred	Respondent argues Losh bars successive habeas claims after an omnibus proceeding	Court: Res judicata bars all claims that were or could have been known in prior omnibus proceeding except for ineffective assistance of habeas counsel
Whether Gray II constituted an omnibus habeas proceeding	Gray implied prior proceeding was incomplete and not omnibus	Respondent argued Gray II included counsel appointment and sufficient process to qualify as omnibus	Court: Under these facts Gray II qualifies as an omnibus proceeding for Losh purposes
Whether Gray's predicate‑conviction and jury‑instruction claims were preserved or newly discoverable	Gray argued these issues were not reasonably discoverable earlier	Respondent pointed to draft amended petition and record in Gray II showing these issues were known	Court: Issues were known or could have been known with diligence; barred by res judicata
Whether habeas counsel were ineffective	Gray claimed his habeas attorneys provided constitutionally deficient representation	Respondent maintained counsel fully reviewed the record and withdrew only after concluding no meritorious claims	Court: Applying Strickland, counsel were not ineffective; claim denied

Losh v. McKenzie, 166 W.Va. 762, 277 S.E.2d 606 (W.Va. 1981) (res judicata bars successive habeas petitions after an omnibus proceeding)
Mathena v. Haines, 219 W.Va. 417, 633 S.E.2d 771 (W.Va. 2006) (standard of review for habeas corpus appeals)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑pronged ineffective assistance of counsel test)
State v. Miller, 194 W.Va. 3, 459 S.E.2d 114 (W.Va. 1995) (adopting Strickland standard)
State v. Triplett, 187 W.Va. 760, 421 S.E.2d 511 (W.Va. 1992) (suitability of ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal vs habeas)
Gray v. Ballard, 227 W.Va. 265, 708 S.E.2d 459 (W.Va. 2009) (Gray I) (discussing counsel breakdown and appellate directives)