Opinion
No. 15-0885
04-12-2016
Kenneth Riley, Petitioner Below, Petitioner v. William J. Vest, Warden, Beckley Correctional Center, Respondent Below, Respondent
(Randolph County 12-C-181)
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Petitioner Kenneth Riley, by counsel Gerald E. Blair Jr., appeals the Circuit Court of Randolph County's August 7, 2015, order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Respondent William J. Vest, Warden, by counsel Lara Kay Omps-Botteicher, filed a response. On appeal, petitioner alleges that the circuit court erred in denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus because he received ineffective assistance of counsel and the State failed to fulfill its plea agreement.
Pursuant to Rule 41(c) of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure, we have replaced the original respondent, David Jones, with William J. Vest, who is the current warden of the Beckley Correctional Center where petitioner is incarcerated.
This Court has considered the parties' briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the briefs, and the record presented, the Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court's order is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
In October of 1998, the Randolph County grand jury indicted petitioner on one count each of delivering a controlled substance to an inmate, attempting to transport into prison a controlled substance, conspiracy, and possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance. The indictment was based upon an investigation of several recorded jailhouse telephone calls wherein it was believed that petitioner orchestrated a plan to smuggle marijuana into the Huttonsville Correctional Complex for personal consumption and/or distribution.
In January of 1999, Petitioner pled guilty to one count each of delivering a controlled substance to an inmate, conspiracy, and possession with intent to deliver. As part of the plea agreement the State agreed to recommend concurrent sentences for these crimes and that these sentences be served consecutively to petitioner's underlying convictions. During the plea hearing, petitioner set forth the factual basis for his plea stating that he "help [sic] arrange get [sic] some marijuana dropped off to be brought into Huttonsville" and that it was for "personal use and [to] probably sell some." Thereafter, the circuit court held a sentencing hearing during which the State indicated its recommendation regarding sentencing was contained in the plea agreement. The circuit court sentenced petitioner to three consecutive terms of incarceration of one to five years. Further, the circuit court ordered that petitioner's sentences were to be served consecutive to his underlying convictions.
Petitioner was incarcerated for several larceny related offenses at the time of the indictment.
In August of 1999, the circuit court held a hearing on petitioner's motion for reduction of sentence made pursuant to Rule 35(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure. When asked for the State's position in regard to petitioner's motion, the State argued that petitioner's sentence was "quite appropriate, and should stand" primarily because petitioner was "one of the major players and coordinators of this event as opposed to some of the other co-defendants[.]" Accordingly, the circuit court denied petitioner's motion for reduction of sentence.
Petitioner filed a pro se petition for habeas corpus relief on November 19, 2012. Thereafter, the circuit court appointed counsel for petitioner and directed that an amended petition for habeas corpus relief be filed. As directed, petitioner, by counsel, filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that he was entitled to relief because the State failed to fulfill the plea bargain and a general "omnibus clause" that specifically preserved all other grounds for relief.
In January of 2014, the circuit court held an omnibus evidentiary hearing during which the circuit court allowed petitioner to assert the following additional grounds for relief: 1) consecutive sentences for the same transaction; 2) unfulfilled plea bargain; 3) ineffective assistance of counsel; 4) double jeopardy; 5) no preliminary hearing; and 6) severer sentence than expected. During a continued omnibus hearing in December of 2014, the circuit court heard testimony from petitioner's former counsel responsible for negotiating the plea agreement. Again, the circuit court continued that matter to allow the parties to secure additional discovery material from the underlying criminal matter. By ordered entered August 7, 2015, the circuit court denied petitioner's petition for habeas corpus. It is from this order that petitioner appeals
This Court reviews appeals of circuit court orders denying habeas corpus relief under the following standard:
"In reviewing challenges to the findings and conclusions of the circuit court in a habeas corpus action, we apply a three-prong standard of review. We review the final order and the ultimate disposition under an abuse of discretion standard; the underlying factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard; and questions of law are subject to a de novo review." Syllabus point 1, Mathena v. Haines, 219 W.Va. 417, 633 S.E.2d 771 (2006).Syl. Pt. 1, State ex rel. Franklin v. McBride, 226 W.Va. 375, 701 S.E.2d 97 (2009).
In his first assignment of error, petitioner argues that the circuit court erred in denying habeas relief based on his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Specifically, petitioner argues that his trial counsel was ineffective because counsel allowed him to plead guilty to offenses that were "impossible" to commit. Petitioner devotes only one short paragraph of argument to this assignment of error. He does not cite to a single case in support of his argument that it was factually "impossible" to plead guilty or that his trial counsel was ineffective. This is in direct contradiction to this Court's Rules of Appellate Procedure and specific directions issued by administrative order.
Petitioner's conclusory reference to that it was "impossible" to commit these crimes is deficient as it is unsupported by citations to the appendix record on appeal or by meaningful argument. As this Court has explained, "[a] skeletal 'argument,' really nothing more than an assertion, does not preserve a claim . . . ." State v. Kaufman, 227 W.Va. 537, 555 n. 39, 711 S.E.2d 607, 625 n. 39 (2011) (quoting United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir.1991)). --------
Specifically, Rule 10(c)(7) of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure requires that
[t]he brief must contain an argument exhibiting clearly the points of fact and law presented, the standard of review applicable, and citing the authorities relied on . . . [and] must contain appropriate and specific citations to the record on appeal[.] The Court may disregard errors that are not adequately supported by specific references to the record on appeal.(emphasis added). Additionally, in an Administrative Order entered December 10, 2012, Re: Filings That Do Not Comply With the Rules of Appellate Procedure, Chief Justice Menis E. Ketchum specifically noted in paragraph two that "[b]riefs that lack citation of authority [or] fail to structure an argument applying applicable law" are not in compliance with this Court's rules. Further, "[b]riefs with arguments that do not contain a citation to legal authority to support the argument presented and do not 'contain appropriate and specific citations to the record on appeal . . . as required by rule 10(c)(7)" are not in compliance with this Court's rules. Here, petitioner's brief is woefully inadequate. While it does appropriately cite to the applicable standard of review on appeal, it lacks citations to any relevant legal authority. Thus, petitioner's assignment of error was not properly developed on appeal. However, despite petitioner's failure to preserve this issue for appeal, this Court has reviewed the record in this matter and determined that the circuit court committed no error in regard to petitioner's first assignment of error. See Syl. Pt. 8, in part, State v. Fortner, 182 W.Va. 345, 387 S.E.2d 812 (1989) (holding "a person may be convicted of a crime so long as the evidence demonstrates that he acted as an accessory before the fact, as a principal in the second degree, or as a principal in the first degree in the commission of such offense."); see also Syl., in part, State v. Dameron, 172 W.Va. 186, 304 S.E.2d 339 (1983) (holding "an accessory before the fact is a person who being absent at the time and place of the crime, procures, counsels, commands, incites, . . . another person to commit the crime[.]" (internal citations omitted)).
Petitioner also reasserts his claim that the trial court erred in denying him habeas relief based on the State's failure to fulfill its plea bargain. Specifically, petitioner argues that the State failed to recommend concurrent sentencing at the hearing on his motion for reduction of sentence filed pursuant to Rule 35(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure. We do not agree. Upon our review and consideration of the circuit court's order, the parties' arguments, and the record submitted on appeal, we find no error or abuse of discretion by the circuit court. Our review of the record supports the circuit court's decision to deny petitioner post-conviction habeas corpus relief based on this alleged error, which was also argued below. Indeed, the circuit court's order includes well-reasoned findings and conclusions as to the assignments of error raised on appeal. Given our conclusion that the circuit court's order and the record before us reflect no clear error or abuse of discretion, we hereby adopt and incorporate the circuit court's findings and conclusions as they relate to petitioner's assignments of error raised herein and direct the Clerk to attach a copy of the circuit court's August 7, 2015, "Final Order Denying Post-Conviction Writ of Habeas Corpus" to this memorandum decision.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.
Affirmed. ISSUED: April 12, 2016
CONCURRED IN BY:
Chief Justice Menis E. Ketchum
Justice Robin Jean Davis
Justice Brent D. Benjamin
Justice Margaret L. Workman
Justice Allen H. Loughry II
Image materials not available for display.