Catlett v. Ballard, 13-0078
| Decision Date | 12 November 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 13-0078,13-0078 |
| Parties | Herman Catlett, Petitioner, Petitioner v. David Ballard, Warden, Mt. Olive Correctional Complex, Respondent, Respondent |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Petitioner Herman Catlett, appearing pro se, appeals the order of the Circuit Court of Berkeley County, entered January 14, 2013, that denied his most recent petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Respondent Warden, by counsel Christopher C. Quasebarth, filed a response.
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 is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
The body of Charles Arvin was found in his vehicle on July 1, 1984, just outside Martinsburg, West Virginia. The victim's car was seen two nights before, parked at the residence of petitioner and his then-girlfriend Penny Stanley. The body was covered in household trash that included an envelope addressed to petitioner and several articles containing Ms. Stanley's fingerprints. Petitioner and Ms. Stanley were subsequently arrested and charged with the murder. Petitioner was released on bond while Ms. Stanley remained incarcerated. However, Ms. Stanley later pled guilty to being an accessory after the fact to Mr. Arvin's death and agreed to testify truthfully at petitioner's trial.
Ms. Stanley testified at petitioner's trial as follows: (1) the victim came to petitioner's and Ms. Stanley's house on June 29, 1984; (2) Ms. Stanley went onto the front porch while petitioner and the victim talked; and (3) Ms. Stanley saw the victim dead on the floor when petitioner called her back in to the kitchen. Ms. Stanley further testified that she saw a club in the sink with water running over it to ostensibly wash blood off it.1 Finally, Ms. Stanley testified that the victim often sold drugs to petitioner and that petitioner recovered twenty Valium pills and approximately $900 in cash from the victim after murdering him. Ms. Stanley admitted that she helped petitioner putplastic bags over the body and drag it to the victim's vehicle. Petitioner then drove the car away with the victim's body in it. Subsequently, petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and was sentenced to a life term in prison without the possibility of parole. This Court affirmed petitioner's conviction in State v. Catlett, 180 W.Va. 447, 376 S.E.2d 834 (1988).
Since his murder conviction, petitioner has filed a total of six petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court. In his previous habeas corpus proceedings, petitioner had two omnibus hearings, one in 1992 and one in 1998. On December 31, 2012, petitioner filed his sixth and most recent petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging newly discovered evidence as follows: (1) a February 23, 2005 affidavit from Ms. Stanley (now Van Metre);2 and (2) a grand jury transcript petitioner received as a result of a circuit court order entered October 1, 2012. In the October 1, 2012 order, the circuit court explained that the failure to previously provide petitioner with the grand jury transcript was due to "inadvertence" on the part of the circuit clerk's office.
On January 14, 2013, the circuit court summarily dismissed petitioner's sixth habeas petition ruling that neither Ms. Stanley's affidavit nor the grand jury transcript met the standard for newly discovered evidence. The circuit court found that none of the allegations in Ms. Stanley's affidavit "state any new evidence probative to petitioner's conviction." Furthermore, the circuit court noted that in the affidavit, Ms. Stanley "does not aver that she committed perjury or otherwise lied" and "does nothing to refute all the other evidence received at trial." In conclusion, the circuit court "[did] not find this affidavit of a witness who testified at trial to be new evidence." As for the grand jury transcript, the court determined that it did not constitute newly discovered evidence because with reasonable diligence, petitioner could have learned of the transcript "at each of the prior omnibus habeas corpus proceedings and [petitioner's direct] appeal." While petitioner raised additional issues in the instant petition, the circuit court found that "each ground, beyond the two addressed above [alleging newly discovered evidence] has either been waived or final[ly] adjudicated at direct appeal or his five previous habeas petitions."3
Accordingly, the circuit court concluded that summary dismissal was appropriate. Petitioner now appeals the circuit court's January 14, 2013 order.
We review the circuit court's order summarily dismissing a habeas petition 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.
Syl. Pt. 1, Mathena v. Haines, 219 W.Va. 417, 633 S.E.2d 771 (2006).
On appeal, petitioner asserts that his most recent petition was properly supported by newly discovered evidence and, as such, the doctrine of res judicata did not bar his petition.4 Respondent argues that each of the grounds raised in the instant petition was capable of being decided on the record alone and, therefore, the circuit court properly summarily dismissed the petition.
This Court notes the standard for reviewing a claim of newly discovered evidence is set forth in State v. Frazier, 162 W.Va. 935, 253 S.E.2d 534 (1979).5 The Court finds that petitioner'sclaim that Ms. Stanley's affidavit constitutes new evidence is dubious in the extreme. The affidavit was obtained nearly eight years before petitioner filed his instant petition. This Court's records reflect that the affidavit was obtained from Ms. Stanley during the appeal of the denial of petitioner's third habeas petition, approximately six months after the circuit court's August 31, 2004 order. Although not procured in time for the circuit court's consideration, petitioner raised the affidavit in his appeal in Supreme Court No. 050841. Petitioner has had several other habeas proceedings since this Court's June 29, 2005 refusal order. Raising it, again, now seems, at the very least, tardy. Furthermore, the circuit court's findings, to the effect that the affidavit would not have produced an opposite result at trial, are entitled to deference.6 Therefore, this Court concludes that Ms. Stanley's affidavit is not new evidence.
Petitioner encounters the same problem in arguing that the grand jury transcript was improperly withheld from him. The circuit court found that petitioner had not been previously provided with the transcript through mere "inadvertence" and that petitioner could have obtained it prior to October of 2012 if he had acted with reasonable diligence "at each of the prior omnibus habeas corpus proceedings and [petitioner's direct] appeal." Furthermore, after reviewing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial