Ballard ex rel. Mount Olive Corr. Ctr. v. Meckling

• Decision Date: 09 April 2015
• Docket Number: No. 14–0245.,14–0245.
• Citation: 772 S.E.2d 208,235 W.Va. 109
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: David BALLARD, Warden, ex rel. MOUNT OLIVE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent Below, Petitioner v. Patrick J. MECKLING, Petitioner Below, Respondent.

235 W.Va. 109

772 S.E.2d 208

David BALLARD, Warden, ex rel. MOUNT OLIVE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent Below, Petitioner

v.Patrick J. MECKLING, Petitioner Below, Respondent.

No. 14–0245.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted March 4, 2015.

Decided April 9, 2015.

As Corrected Aug. 14, 2015.

Scott R. Smith, Esq., Ohio County Prosecuting Attorney, Brian A. Ghaphery, Esq., Assistant Ohio County, Prosecuting Attorney, Wheeling, WV, for Petitioner.

Brent A. Clyburn, Esq., Law Office of Brent A. Clyburn, Wheeling, WV, for Respondents.

Opinion

Justice KETCHUM :

Petitioner Warden David Ballard (“Warden Ballard”) appeals the February 4, 2014, order of the Circuit Court of Ohio County that granted Respondent Patrick J. Meckling's (“Mr. Meckling”) writ of habeas corpus petition. Following a jury trial, Mr. Meckling was convicted of one felony count of abduction with intent to defile and one misdemeanor count of battery. In his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Mr. Meckling argued that he did not receive a fair trial because he was briefly placed in handcuffs in view of some members of the jury. The circuit court agreed with Mr. Meckling, granted the requested writ of habeas corpus, and vacated his convictions. After entry of the circuit court's order, Warden Ballard filed the present appeal with this Court.

Upon review, we reverse the circuit court's February 4, 2014, order granting Mr. Meckling's habeas corpus petition.

I.

A. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In September 2007, Mr. Meckling was indicted¹ by the Ohio County grand jury on three counts: (1) abduction with intent to defile in violation of W.Va.Code § 61–2–14 [1984] ; (2) malicious assault in violation of W.Va.Code § 61–2–9 [2004] ; and (3) “driving while revoked for driving under the influence of alcohol, second offense” in violation of W.Va.Code § 17B–4–3 [2004]. This indictment resulted from an incident in which Mr. Meckling allegedly assaulted and kidnapped his longtime girlfriend (“alleged victim”) outside of a bar and allegedly forced her to give him money to buy crack cocaine.

On September 19, 2007, Mr. Meckling entered a “not guilty” plea to all three counts in the indictment and was released after posting a $50,000.00 surety bond. The bond stated that Mr. Meckling was not to have any contact with the alleged victim. Four days before Mr. Meckling's trial was scheduled to begin, the State of West Virginia filed a motion to revoke Mr. Meckling's bond after discovering that he had contacted the alleged victim. The circuit court granted the State's motion and issued a warrant for Mr. Meckling's arrest. However, Mr. Meckling was not immediately apprehended and had not been taken into custody prior to appearing for his trial on October 29, 2007.

Mr. Meckling was not taken into custody upon appearing for his trial on the morning of October 29, 2007. Instead, a jury was seated, both sides made opening statements and the alleged victim testified. Following the alleged victim's testimony, the court was preparing to take its lunch recess. The court excused the jurors for lunch and then ordered that Mr. Meckling be taken into custody for violating his bond. Mr. Meckling was then placed in handcuffs and taken into custody.

After the lunch recess, Mr. Meckling's lawyer moved for a mistrial, arguing that Mr. Meckling was prejudiced by being placed in handcuffs and taken into custody in front of the jury. The circuit court denied this motion, stating, “He's in custody because he violated the terms of his bond. Period. That could happen. There's no, no other way of handling that matter.”

It is unclear how many jurors witnessed Mr. Meckling being placed in handcuffs. The circuit court's order granting Mr. Meckling's habeas corpus petition states that Mr. Meckling was “handcuffed and taken into custody in the presence of at least some of the jurors.” The circuit court's order does not cite to testimony from Mr. Meckling or any other witness who testified that the jury saw him being placed in handcuffs. Instead, the circuit court's order cites the portion of the trial transcript in which Mr. Meckling's trial lawyer moved for a mistrial and stated that Mr. Meckling had been “taken into custody and ... handcuffed in front of the jury[.]” At the time Mr. Meckling's trial lawyer moved for a mistrial, neither counsel for the State, nor the trial judge attempted to refute the statement that Mr. Meckling had been “handcuffed in front of the jury.” In addition to this statement from Mr. Meckling's trial lawyer, Mr. Meckling submitted an affidavit from one of the jurors who stated, “I do recall observing, during a break in trial proceedings ... [Mr.] Meckling being shackled and taken into custody.” Mr. Meckling also submitted an affidavit from his trial lawyer who stated, “I do recall observing Mr. Meckling being shackled and taken into custody ... while in the presence of the jury.”²

Mr. Meckling was not placed in handcuffs following the lunch recess and was not restrained in any manner for the duration of his trial. At the conclusion of his trial, the jury found Mr. Meckling guilty of the felony offense of abduction with intent to defile and of the misdemeanor offense of battery, a lesser included offense of malicious assault.³ After the jury returned its verdict finding Mr. Meckling guilty on these two counts, the State filed a recidivist information charging Mr. Meckling with being the same person who had previously been convicted of two felony offenses. Mr. Meckling admitted that he was the same person who had been convicted of these previous felony offenses. The circuit court sentenced Mr. Meckling to a term of imprisonment for life.⁴

Mr. Meckling's initial appeal to this Court was refused by order entered on May 22, 2008.⁵ After this Court refused his petition for appeal, Mr. Meckling filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus which the circuit court denied by order entered on December 9, 2008. The circuit court did not conduct a hearing on this petition and stated in its order that it had “examined the petition and the underlying criminal matters and has concluded that the grounds for relief [Mr. Meckling] has asserted have been previously and finally adjudicated or waived.”

Mr. Meckling renewed his pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the circuit court did not make specific findings of facts and conclusions of law in its December 9, 2008, order. The circuit court denied Mr. Meckling's renewed motion, concluding that the court's previous order had “made the specific finding of fact and conclusion of law that ‘the grounds for relief the Petitioner has asserted have been previously and finally adjudicated or waived.’ ”

On March 15, 2009, Mr. Meckling filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus with this Court. By order entered on May 13, 2009, this Court remanded the matter to the circuit court for an omnibus habeas hearing and ordered that the circuit court appoint a lawyer to represent Mr. Meckling. The circuit court appointed counsel for Mr. Meckling. By order entered on February 4, 2014, the circuit court granted Mr. Meckling's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, concluding that Mr. Meckling did not receive a fair trial because he was briefly placed in handcuffs in view of “at least some of the jurors.” The circuit court's order states that the trial court “deprived [Mr. Meckling] of his due process rights, as such have been prescribed under both State and Federal Constitutions, when it ordered him shackled during the course of the trial in the presence of the jury, and security and order did not warrant such intrusive conduct.” The circuit court vacated Mr. Meckling's convictions of felony abduction with intent to defile and misdemeanor battery, and vacated Mr. Meckling's recidivist sentence of imprisonment for life.⁶ After entry of the circuit court's order, Warden Ballard filed the present appeal.

II.STANDARD OF REVIEW

Our standard of review is set forth in Syllabus Point 1, Mathena v. Haines, 219 W.Va. 417, 633 S.E.2d 771 (2006). It states:

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.

With this standard in mind, we proceed to consider the arguments of the parties.

III.ANALYSIS

The issue is whether the circuit court abused its discretion by granting Mr. Meckling's writ of habeas corpus petition based on its ruling that he did not receive a fair trial because “at least some of the jurors” briefly observed Mr. Meckling being handcuffed during a trial recess. Warden Ballard asserts that the circuit court erred by relying on previous cases from this Court addressing whether a defendant may be handcuffed or shackled throughout the duration of the trial. These cases are distinguishable from the present case, according to Warden Ballard, because Mr. Meckling was not handcuffed throughout the duration of the trial, rather, he was briefly placed in handcuffs during the lunch recess because he violated the terms of his bond. By contrast, Mr. Meckling states that the circuit court correctly determined that he suffered substantial prejudice as a result of being handcuffed in front of “at least some of the jurors.”

This Court addressed whether a criminal defendant may be shackled or handcuffed throughout the duration of his or her trial in State v. Brewster, 164 W.Va. 173, 261 S.E.2d 77 (1979). In Brewster, the criminal defendant was forced to wear handcuffs throughout the duration of his armed robbery trial. After being convicted, the defendant appealed, arguing that he was prejudiced as a result of being forced to wear handcuffs throughout the trial. This Court agreed and held in Syllabus Point 3 of Brewster that “[a] criminal ...