Opinion
No. 15-0383
02-19-2016
Steven A. Williamson, Petitioner Below, Petitioner v. Patrick Mirandy, Warden, St. Mary's Correctional Center Respondent Below, Respondent
(Mercer County 15-C-32)
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Petitioner Steven A. Williamson, pro se, appeals the order of the Circuit Court of Mercer County, entered on April 6, 2015, summarily denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Respondent Patrick Mirandy, Warden, St. Mary's Correctional Center, by counsel Laura Young, filed a response, and petitioner filed a reply.
The 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.
Petitioner was indicted on charges of first-degree robbery and assault during commission of a felony. The charges stemmed from an incident during which petitioner stole a purse from a woman while she was coming out of a business. Petitioner grabbed the purse and jerked it off the woman's shoulder, causing her to fall and dislocate her shoulder. Petitioner fled on a bicycle, but was apprehended shortly thereafter.
On December 12, 2011, petitioner pled guilty to first-degree robbery in exchange for the State's dismissal the assault charge and agreement to stand silent as to a recommendation at petitioner's sentencing. After engaging in a colloquy with petitioner, the circuit court accepted petitioner's guilty plea and convicted him of first-degree robbery. The circuit court ordered a pre-sentence investigation report ("PSI report") prior to sentencing. After receiving the PSI report, the circuit court held petitioner's sentencing hearing on February 6, 2012. The circuit court imposed a sentence of twenty-five years of incarceration, noting that petitioner committed an act of violence on the victim by knocking her down and separating her shoulder. Petitioner's counsel filed a motion for reconsideration of sentence, which was denied on June 3, 2013.
The PSI report erroneously described the sentencing range for first-degree robbery. At the sentencing hearing, the circuit court corrected this error stating, as it did at the plea hearing, that first-degree robbery did not have a maximum sentence. See W.Va. Code § 61-2-12(a)(1) (defendant convicted of first-degree robbery "shall be imprisoned in a state correctional facility not less than ten years.") (emphasis added).
On January 30, 2015, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging (1) involuntary guilty plea; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel; (3) more severe sentence than expected; and (4) failure of counsel to appeal. Upon review of the petition, the underlying criminal record, and the hearing transcripts, the circuit court determined that it could rule on the petition without an evidentiary hearing or appointment of counsel. Accordingly, the circuit court addressed each of petitioner's four grounds—finding merit in none of them—and denied both his habeas petition and his motion for appointment of counsel in an extensive and well-reasoned order.
Petitioner appeals the circuit court's April 6, 2015, order summarily denying his habeas petition. We apply the following standard of review in habeas cases:
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.Syl. Pt. 1, Mathena v. Haines, 219 W.Va. 417, 418, 633 S.E.2d 771, 772 (2006). Also, we will not address issues which have not been decided by the circuit court. See Syl. Pt. 2, Sands v. Security Trust Co., 143 W.Va. 522, 102 S.E.2d 733, 734 (1958).
We find that the circuit court's order adequately resolves all issues raised by petitioner in his habeas petition. We briefly note two issues that were not presented to the circuit court. First, petitioner concedes that respondent is correct that he did not raise the issue of his mental competency to enter his guilty plea. On appeal, petitioner asks that we address that issue under the plain error doctrine or remand this case so that the circuit court can address it. We decline to do either. Because the circuit court summarily denied petitioner's petition without holding a hearing or appointing counsel, the doctrine of res judicata will not bar petitioner from filing successive habeas petitions. See Syl. Pt. 2, Losh v. McKenzie, 166 W.Va. 762, 277 S.E.2d 606, 608 (1981). Petitioner may raise the issue of his mental competency in a subsequent petition provided that he has adequate factual support to do so.
Second, the circuit court resolved petitioner's excessive sentence claim pursuant to State v. Goodnight, 169 W.Va. 366, 287 S.E.2d 504 (1982), because petitioner made no other argument with regard to a first-degree robbery sentence in his petition. We deem all other arguments regarding such a sentence waived for the purposes of this appeal.
In Syllabus Point 4 of Goodnight, we held that "[s]entences imposed by the trial court, if within statutory limits and if not based on some [im]permissible factor, are not subject to appellate review." 169 W.Va. at 366, 287 S.E.2d at 505. --------
Having reviewed the circuit court's April 6, 2015, "Order Summarily Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus," we hereby adopt and incorporate the circuit court's well-reasoned findings and conclusions as to all other issues raised by petitioner in this appeal. The Clerk is directed to attach a copy of the circuit court's order to this memorandum decision. We conclude that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.
Affirmed. ISSUED: February 19, 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.