Hatfield v. Ballard

Citation878 F.Supp.2d 633
Decision Date10 July 2012
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 3:09–0119.
PartiesStephen Westley HATFIELD, Petitioner, v. David BALLARD, Warden of the Mount Olive Correctional Complex, Respondent.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Southern District of West Virginia

878 F.Supp.2d 633

Stephen Westley HATFIELD, Petitioner,
v.
David BALLARD, Warden of the Mount Olive Correctional Complex, Respondent.

Civil Action No. 3:09–0119.

United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia.

July 10, 2012.


[878 F.Supp.2d 635]


Lonnie C. Simmons, Katherine R. Snow, DiTrapano Barrett & Dipiero, Charleston, WV, for Petitioner.

Barbara H. Allen, Attorney General's Office, Charleston, WV, for Respondent.


Memorandum Opinion and Order
I. Introduction

ROBERT C. CHAMBERS, District Judge.

Before the Court is Stephen Wesley Hatfield's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF No. 1), Respondent's Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 7 and 19), and Petitioner's Cross–Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 28). The Petitioner in this case seeks a writ of habeas corpus declaring his present incarceration to be in violation of federal law. Specifically, Mr. Hatfield contends that (A) he was not mentally competent at the time his original guilty plea was entered, (B) he was denied a full evidentiary hearing on the issue of his mental competency, and (C) that he was denied a full evidentiary hearing on the issue of his criminal responsibility.

By standing order, the Petition was referred to United States Magistrate Judge who, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), submitted her Proposed Findings and Recommendations, 2011 WL 5822122. ECF No. 33 (hereinafter “PF & R”). The Magistrate

[878 F.Supp.2d 636]

Judge recommended that this Court (1) grant Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment; (2) deny Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment; and (3) grant Petitioner's request for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and set aside his conviction and discharge him unless the State elects to timely retry him. Respondent filed timely objections to the PF & R. The Court heard oral argument, and Respondent conceded that Petitioner never received a constitutionally adequate competency hearing. Instead, Respondent relied entirely on a procedural default argument that was raised for the first time in the Respondent's objections to the PF & R. In light of Respondent's new emphasis on procedural default, the Court ordered supplemental briefing on the issue. Having received the supplemental briefs, this matter is now ripe for decision. As set forth in this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court ADOPTS in part the Magistrate's Proposed Findings & Recommendations. Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 28) is GRANTED; Respondent's Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 7 and 19) are DENIED; and the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED; Petitioner's State conviction is hereby set aside; Respondent is ORDERED to discharge Petitioner unless the State of West Virginia elects to retry him in a timely fashion.

II. Background1
A. Factual Background

On May 8, 1988, Mr. Hatfield drove to the Wayne County home of his former girlfriend, Tracey Andrews, and fatally shot her. In the course of committing this crime, Mr. Hatfield also shot and wounded Ms. Andrews' boyfriend, Dewey Meyers, and her neighbor, Roger Cox.2 Following the shootings, Mr. Hatfield fled the scene and was eventually arrested by law enforcement officers after an exchange of gunfire. Police shot Mr. Hatfield several times in the abdomen and leg before managing to capture and disarm him. Pet's Ex. 2, ECF No. 28–2, at 2–6. As a result of his wounds, Mr. Hatfield was hospitalized at Cabell Huntington Hospital and underwent emergency surgery. Id. at 3–4. During his post-operative course, Mr. Hatfield attempted suicide by slashing his wrists and endeavoring to strangle himself with his central venous pressure catheter. Id. Consequently, his attending physician consulted the services of Dr. Johnnie L. Gallemore, Jr., a Marshall University psychiatrist and a member of the hospital's medical staff. Dr. Gallemore examined Mr. Hatfield and diagnosed him with severe depression of approximately two months duration. Id. at 9. According to Dr. Gallemore, Mr. Hatfield was seriously ill and remained a suicide risk. Id. See also Resp's Ex. 14, ECF No. 7–2, at 113. Dr. Gallemore initiated treatment and continued to care for Mr. Hatfield until his discharge from the hospital on June 4, 1988. Pet's Ex. 2, ECF No. 28–2, at 3. Upon discharge, Mr. Hatfield was taken into custody by the Wayne County Sheriff's Department to face charges related to the shootings. Id. A Wayne County Grand

[878 F.Supp.2d 637]

Jury ultimately returned a three count indictment against Mr. Hatfield, charging him with one count of first degree murder and two counts of malicious wounding.

1. Mr. Hatfield's Commitment for Psychiatric Treatment and Evaluation

Shortly after Mr. Hatfield's release from Cabell Huntington Hospital, his defense counsel moved to have him hospitalized so that he could continue to receive psychiatric treatment. On June 10, 1988, the Honorable Robert G. Chafin, Judge of the Circuit Court of Wayne County, conducted a hearing on the motion. Resp's Ex. 14, ECF No. 7–2 at 109–43. At the hearing, Dr. Gallemore was called to testify regarding Mr. Hatfield's suicide attempt in the hospital, the diagnosis of major depressive disorder, and his need for continued treatment. Id. at 110–15. Following this testimony, Judge Chafin granted the motion and committed Mr. Hatfield to Weston State Hospital “for examination, treatment and care for a period that is necessarily required for his psychiatric needs.” Pet's Ex. 3, ECF No. 28–3. The Court further ordered that an examination be performed at Weston State Hospital to determine, in relevant part, Mr. Hatfield's mental competency at the time of the alleged crimes and his competency to stand trial. Id.

During Mr. Hatfield's commitment to Weston State Hospital, his competency was evaluated by Dr. Herbert C. Haynes, a psychiatrist, and Earnest Watkins, M.A., a licensed psychologist. See Pet's Ex. 8, ECF No. 28–8, and Pet's Ex. 9, ECF No. 28–9. On August 1, 1988, Dr. Haynes issued a twelve-page forensic evaluation in which he chronicled Mr. Hatfield's emotional collapse. ECF No. 28–8. Piecing together the events through a series of interviews, Dr. Haynes recounted Mr. Hatfield's story as follows: Mr. Hatfield was a long-term employee of the United States Post Office and Vice–President of the Postal Workers Union. He lived with the victim, Ms. Andrews, for a period of four years during which he supported her through beauty school and then the start of nursing school. Mr. Hatfield described their lives as perfect. On the Friday before April 1, 1988, Ms. Andrews told Mr. Hatfield that she was going out with a girlfriend. She did not return home until Saturday night. When she arrived, she told Mr. Hatfield that she was in love with another man, Dewey Meyers. According to Mr. Hatfield, that was when “his world came crashing down on his head.” At first he did not believe her, but shortly thereafter, Mr. Meyers arrived and loaded some of Ms. Andrews' things in his car and took her away. In the weeks that followed, Mr. Hatfield became desolate. He started to drink heavily, although he had never been much of a drinker, and contemplated suicide. He resigned as Vice–President of the Union, because he could no longer think, concentrate, or function. He spent increasing amounts of time alone at home, often pacing from room to room. Mr. Hatfield described the month before the shootings as “a daze.” He felt like the “most miserable person on earth.” On the morning of May 8, 1988, Mr. Hatfield called Ms. Andrews' mother to wish her a happy Mother's Day. Ms. Andrews' sister answered the telephone and, upon Mr. Hatfield's prodding, confirmed that Ms. Andrews was in love with Mr. Meyers. Mr. Hatfield's remaining hopes were crushed. He decided he needed to speak with Ms. Andrews, but was afraid of Mr. Meyers, so he got his gun before driving to Mr. Meyers' home. Once there, he saw Ms. Andrews and asked to speak with her. She announced to Mr. Meyers that Mr. Hatfield was there; Mr. Hatfield recalled seeing Mr. Meyers running toward him. Mr. Hatfield's recollections of the events

[878 F.Supp.2d 638]

thereafter were sketchy, but he admitted that he shot Ms. Andrews and the others. After the shootings, Mr. Hatfield felt he had nothing to live for and just wanted to die. He devised a plan to have the police kill him, but he wanted to die at home, so he left the scene. Mr. Hatfield explained that he refused to relinquish his gun when the police surrounded him, because he hoped that they would shoot him. When they did not kill him, he tried to kill himself at the hospital. He told Dr. Haynes that if he could take a pill that would make him die, he would gratefully take it, stating “I would welcome not being here ... it's like going into another world and I can't get back.” Id.

Based upon his interviews and examination, Dr. Haynes diagnosed Mr. Hatfield as suffering from Major Depression with an intensely pronounced suicidal component triggered by the grief of his girlfriend leaving him. Dr. Haynes added that although “attempting to arrange one's death by others may seem incomprehensible,” Mr. Hatfield's plan to have the police kill him was consistent with his intense suicidal intent. Pet's Ex. 8, ECF No. 28–8, at 13. Dr. Haynes opined that Mr. Hatfield was not competent at the time of the alleged crimes “because of a mental disorder which grossly impaired his ability to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.” Id. Moreover, Dr. Haynes found that Mr. Hatfield was not competent to stand trial “[n]ot by reason of his lack of comprehension of criminal proceedings or from any impairment of his intelligence, which is at least above average, but from his Major Depression and intense need for punishment as extreme as death.” Id.

On September 8, 1988, Mr. Watkins issued his forensic evaluation. In this twenty-page report, Mr. Watkins opined that Mr. Hatfield was competent to stand trial. He based his opinions on Mr. Hatfield's knowledge of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Hutchinson v. Ballard
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • January 9, 2015
    ...that a state provide a defendant "access to procedures for making a competency evaluation." Id. at 449; see also Hatfield v. Ballard, 878 F. Supp. 2d 633, 655 (S.D.W.Va. 2012) ("It is axiomaticthat the conviction of an accused person while he is legally incompetent violates due process and ......
  • West v. Mirandy
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • November 18, 2016
    ...contends that the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia in Hatfield v. Ballard, 878 F.Supp.2d 633 (S.D. W.Va. 2012), represents a favorable change in the law. In Hatfield, the district court ordered the State of West Virginia to either disch......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT