Ruben C. v. David Ballard, Warden, 15-1111

Ruben C. was indicted and tried for first-degree sexual assault, domestic battery, and violating a domestic violence protective order based on a January 30, 2012 incident involving his wife (victim M.C.-1) after a December 2011 protective order; the jury convicted on all counts.
At trial the State presented testimony that petitioner assaulted the victim, threatened her with a knife and cord, coerced intercourse, and insisted she remove the protective order; photographs of the victim’s facial and neck injuries were admitted.
The victim’s son called police after finding petitioner in the home; police recovered the hidden knife and cord and photographed injuries.
Petitioner was sentenced to 15–35 years for sexual assault and concurrent/related penalties for the other convictions; this Court previously affirmed on direct appeal.
Petitioner filed a post-conviction habeas petition alleging trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to move to exclude or object to the injury photographs, (2) not emphasizing that injuries could be self-inflicted in opening/closing, and (3) failing to properly question the victim and officers about self-infliction.
The circuit court denied habeas relief; the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed, finding counsel’s performance not constitutionally deficient under Strickland and that the challenged actions were reasonable strategy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel erred by not moving to exclude or object to photographs of the victim’s injuries	Counsel should have sought exclusion/objection because photos were prejudicial	Photos were clearly relevant; no justification to exclude; counsel not ineffective	Photographs were admissible and counsel was not ineffective for failing to object
Whether counsel failed to assert in opening/closing that injuries could be self-inflicted	Counsel should have explicitly argued self-infliction more forcefully	Counsel did present fabrication/self-infliction theory in opening/closing; mention in closing was brief but present	Counsel adequately presented the defense theory; not ineffective
Whether counsel failed to properly question victim and officers about possibility of self-infliction	Counsel should have pressed witnesses on self-infliction to support defense	Counsel effectively cross-examined officers and strategically avoided asking the victim questions that likely would not help	Cross-examination and witness questioning were reasonable strategic choices; not ineffective
Whether petitioner demonstrated Strickland prejudice (reasonable probability of different result)	Failure to pursue above actions undermined defense and could have changed outcome	The record shows relevant evidence and counsel’s reasonable strategy; no reasonable probability of a different verdict	No showing of Strickland prejudice; habeas relief denied

Mathena v. Haines, 219 W. Va. 417, 633 S.E.2d 771 (W. Va. 2006) (standards for appellate review of habeas findings)
State ex rel. Franklin v. McBride, 226 W. Va. 375, 701 S.E.2d 97 (W. Va. 2009) (standard of review in habeas appeals)
State v. Miller, 194 W. Va. 3, 459 S.E.2d 114 (W. Va. 1995) (adopting Strickland two-prong test for ineffective assistance)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective assistance of counsel test)