SER William R. Adkins v. Dennis Dingus, Warden, 753 S.E.2d 634

William Adkins shot and killed Shawn Dingess in Adkins’s home; Adkins claimed self‑defense and testified the victim threatened him with a gun. Forensic evidence showed multiple close‑range shots and injuries inconsistent with Adkins’s account.
A jury convicted Adkins of first‑degree murder (recommended mercy). Direct appeal was denied; Adkins later filed a pro se habeas petition and amended filings; the circuit court denied relief on August 9, 2011.
Adkins raised numerous claims but on this appeal presses two: (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to request a “castle doctrine” jury instruction, and (2) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to obtain the suppression‑hearing transcript.
Trial counsel delivered a self‑defense theory to the jury (Baker instruction) but did not request a separate castle‑doctrine instruction; counsel argued facts consistent with standing his ground.
Appellate counsel did not include the suppression‑hearing transcript (now unavailable); Adkins contends the transcript would show inconsistent testimony by Trooper Gunnoe and would have supported suppression of ammunition seized from the bedroom.
The circuit court denied habeas relief; the West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed, applying Strickland/Miller standards and concluding no deficient performance or prejudice on either claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Adkins)	Defendant's Argument (Warden)	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a castle‑doctrine jury instruction	Counsel was objectively unreasonable for not requesting castle instruction where facts (uninvited entry, threats with a gun, conduct in home) supported it	Counsel reasonably pursued a self‑defense strategy; jurors could infer the victim had implied permission to remain, so castle instruction might have confused or weakened defense	Court: No ineffective assistance — counsel’s strategic choice to rely on self‑defense was reasonable; first prong of Strickland/Miller not met
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not obtaining the suppression‑hearing transcript	Failure prevented showing Trooper Gunnoe’s inconsistent testimony and that ammunition seizure violated Fourth Amendment; transcript could have supported suppression on appeal	Transcript likely cumulative or unnecessary; Trooper’s grand jury and trial testimony are consistent; ammunition was observed in plain view during a lawful protective sweep so suppression would not have succeeded; no prejudice from missing transcript	Court: No ineffective assistance — failure to obtain transcript did not prejudice Adkins; exigent/emergency/protective‑sweep/plain‑view analysis supported admission of ammunition

State ex rel. Vernatter v. Warden, 207 W.Va. 11 (review standard for ineffective assistance claims) (mixed question of law and fact review)
State v. Miller, 194 W.Va. 3 (trial counsel performance judged under Strickland two‑prong test; strategic decisions afforded deference)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two‑prong standard)
State v. W.J.B., 166 W.Va. 602 (castle doctrine articulated for dwelling occupants)
State v. Baker, 177 W.Va. 769 (standard for deadly force in self‑defense)
State v. Kendall, 219 W.Va. 686 (exigent circumstances doctrine)
State v. Flippo, 212 W.Va. 560 (limits on searches after emergency ends; inevitable discovery standard)
State v. Julius, 185 W.Va. 422 (plain‑view warrantless seizure elements)
State v. Lacy, 196 W.Va. 104 (protective‑sweep doctrine and scope)