Hatfield v. Painter

Decision Date12 November 2008
Docket NumberNo. 33668.,33668.
Citation671 S.E.2d 453
PartiesStephen Westley HATFIELD, Petitioner Below, Appellee, v. Howard PAINTER, Warden of Mount Olive Correctional Complex, Respondent Below, Appellant.
CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court

1. "Findings of fact made by a trial court in a post-conviction habeas corpus proceeding will not be set aside or reversed on appeal by this Court unless such findings are clearly wrong." Syllabus point 1, State ex rel. Postelwaite v. Bechtold, 158 W.Va. 479, 212 S.E.2d 69 (1975).

2. "A circuit court's entry of summary judgment is reviewed de novo." Syllabus point 1, Painter v. Peavy, 192 W.Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994).

3. "Under the provisions of Code, 1931, 58-4-4, as amended, it is imperative that any appeal from a conviction by a court of limited jurisdiction be instituted by filing a petition therefor within four months from the date of the judgment." Syllabus point 1, State ex rel. Davis v. Boles, 151 W.Va. 221, 151 S.E.2d 110 (1966).

4. "Although our standard of review for summary judgment remains de novo, a circuit court's order granting summary judgment must set out factual findings sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review. Findings of fact, by necessity, include those facts which the circuit court finds relevant, determinative of the issues and undisputed." Syllabus point 3, Fayette County National Bank v. Lilly, 199 W.Va. 349, 484 S.E.2d 232 (1997).

5. "Where a circuit court has found that a defendant in a criminal case where the possible punishment is life imprisonment without mercy is competent to stand trial, but subsequent to the competency hearing, the defendant attempts to commit suicide, then against advice of counsel indicates his desire to plead guilty to the charges in the indictment, before taking the plea of guilty, the trial judge should make certain inquiries of the defendant and counsel for the defendant in addition to those mandated in Call v. McKenzie, 159 W.Va. 191, 220 S.E.2d 665 (1975). The court should require counsel to state on the record the reason why counsel opposes the guilty plea. The court should then ask the defendant to acknowledge on the record that he understands his counsel's statements and if in view of them he still desires to plead guilty. If the defendant then states he still desires to plead guilty, the court may accept the plea." Syllabus point 6, State v. Hatfield, 186 W.Va. 507, 413 S.E.2d 162 (1991).

6. "The general rule is that when a question has been definitely determined by this Court its decision is conclusive on parties, privies and courts, including this Court, upon a second appeal or writ of error and it is regarded as the law of the case." Syllabus point 1, Mullins v. Green, 145 W.Va. 469, 115 S.E.2d 320 (1960).

7. "A litigant may not silently acquiesce to an alleged error, or actively contribute to such error, and then raise that error as a reason for reversal on appeal." Syllabus point 1, Maples v. West Virginia Department of Commerce, Division of Parks and Recreation, 197 W.Va. 318, 475 S.E.2d 410 (1996).

Thomas M. Plymale, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Wayne, for the Appellant.

Lonnie C. Simmons, DiTrapano, Barrett & Dipiero, PLLC, Charleston, David R. Tyson, Tyson & Tyson, Huntington, for the Appellee.

PER CURIAM:

The respondent below and appellant herein, Howard Painter, as the Warden of Mount Olive Correctional Center (hereinafter "appellant"), appeals from an order entered March 16, 2007, by the Circuit Court of Wayne County. In the underlying case, the circuit court granted summary judgment in a habeas corpus action filed by the petitioner below and appellee herein, Stephen Westley Hatfield (hereinafter "defendant"). The circuit court determined that the defendant was incompetent at the point in time that he entered his guilty plea. Thus, the lower court set aside the convictions and ordered a new trial. On appeal to this Court, the appellant argues that the circuit court's determination was incorrect because the defendant was competent at the time he entered into a guilty plea. The defendant responds that the circuit court's award of summary judgment was correct and, further, that the appellant's appeal was untimely filed and should be dismissed.1 Based upon the parties' arguments, the record designated for our consideration, and the pertinent authorities, we find that the appeal was timely filed, and that the circuit court's award of summary judgment was in error. Therefore, the decision of the circuit court is reversed and remanded.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case has been before this Court on two other occasions. Knowledge of the prior case history is essential to understanding the present posture of the case. The defendant previously pled guilty to allegations that he shot and killed his ex-girlfriend in 1988. He also pled guilty to allegations that, in the course of this act, he shot and wounded the boyfriend of his ex-girlfriend and shot and wounded an innocent bystander. The defendant then fled and was subsequently wounded during an exchange of gunfire with police when he was finally apprehended.

Despite opposition by his counsel, the defendant pled guilty to one count of first degree murder and two counts of malicious wounding. An appeal to this Court followed. The appeal was based on the defendant's assertion that he had been incompetent to enter a guilty plea. This Court remanded the action to the circuit court to make certain inquiries of the defendant and to ask the defendant whether he understood counsel's reasons for opposing entry of a guilty plea. See generally State v. Hatfield, 186 W.Va. 507, 413 S.E.2d 162 (1991) (hereinafter "Hatfield I"). On remand, the circuit court denied the defendant's request to withdraw his guilty pleas and ratified his previously-imposed sentences. The lower court determined that the defendant was competent at the time he entered his guilty pleas and that Hatfield I did not vacate the guilty pleas that were the basis of the first appeal.2 The defendant again appealed to this Court, asserting that the decision in Hatfield I had vacated his previous convictions. This Court disagreed and affirmed the lower court's determinations, finding that the lower court fulfilled the mandate on remand and had conducted a proper hearing to resolve the question of this Court. See generally State v. Hatfield, 206 W.Va. 125, 522 S.E.2d 416 (1999) (per curiam) (hereinafter "Hatfield II").

The subject of the present appeal to this Court is the defendant's subsequent action in habeas corpus, filed on September 28, 2000, setting forth numerous violations of his constitutional rights.3 Counsel for the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment in the lower court on three of the asserted counts. The motion for summary judgment was granted on one count: the defendant's constitutional rights were violated because he was incompetent at the time he entered his guilty plea, and he was denied a full evidentiary hearing on the issue of competency. The other counts were deemed moot. Thus, the lower court determined that the guilty pleas had been entered at a time when the defendant was incompetent. The lower court set aside the prior convictions and ordered the State of West Virginia to proceed against the defendant in accordance with the original indictment.

The January 31, 2005, order by the lower court granting summary judgment did not set forth the court's own findings of fact and conclusions of law. Rather, it incorporated by reference the proposed findings and conclusions that the defendant had submitted. While the order disposed of the issue of the defendant's competence at the time the guilty plea was entered, the order also mandated more psychological and/or psychiatric examinations to determine the defendant's present mental status prior to the State proceeding against the original indictment.

After receiving the results of the ordered psychological testing, the lower court entered an order on September 14, 2005, stating that the defendant "presently is mentally competent to stand trial and competent to assist his counsel to a reasonable degree of psychiatric certainty[.]" (Emphasis in original). Within that same order, the circuit court also found that it "has resolved the habeas corpus issues originally presented and processed; correspondingly, the Court does further find that this Court, which was appointed as a Special Judge to preside in this habeas corpus action, has completed its duties in this case and has no authority to take any further action."4

The State filed a motion on November 3, 2005, titled "Motion for Specific Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Motion for Clarification." This motion was based on the circuit court's failure to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law in its January 31, 2005, order that granted summary judgment to the defendant.5 Thereafter, the circuit court filed an order titled "Supplemental Order: Granting Motion for Summary Judgment" on March 16, 2007. This order was substantially the same as the January 31, 2005, order; however, it recited the findings and conclusions within the order itself as compared to referencing them from another document.6

It is from the March 16, 2007, order that this appeal is taken based on the appellant's argument that this is the final appealable order in the case. The appellant argues that the lower court's determination that the defendant was incompetent at the time of the guilty plea was in error. The defendant responds that the lower court's determination as to his competency was accurate, and that setting aside the convictions was proper given the lack of a full evidentiary hearing. Further, the defendant argues that the September 14, 2005, order was the final appealable order and that an attempt to appeal the March 16, 2007, order was inappropriate. Thus, the defendant filed a motion...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Daye v. Plumley, 13-0913
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • April 4, 2014
    ......Pt. 4, State v. Hatfield, 169 W.Va. 191, 286 S.E.2d 402 (1982). Page 44 2. The prosecution must disclose any and all inducements given to its witnesses in exchange for their ...Frazier & Oxley, L.C. v. Cummings, 214 W.Va. 802, 808, 591 S.E.2d 728,734(2003). Page 58 Hatfield v. Painter, 222 W.Va. 622, 671 S.E.2d 453 (2008).         This "law of the case" doctrine bars consideration of the issues Petitioner raises in Ground ......
  • Hatfield v. Ballard
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • July 10, 2012
    ......Hatfield, 186 W.Va. 507, 413 S.E.2d 162 (1991); State v. Hatfield, 206 W.Va. 125, 522 S.E.2d 416 (1999); and Hatfield v. Painter, 222 W.Va. 622, 671 S.E.2d 453 (2008). Hereinafter, these cases will be referred to as “ Hatfield I, ” “ Hatfield II, ” and “ Hatfield III, ” respectively.          3 .W. Va.Code § 27–6A–1 (1983) provided in relevant part:         (a) Whenever a court of record .. ......
  • State v. Hughes
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • February 11, 2010
    ...party seeking reversal." Syl. pt. 4, State v. Mann, 205 W.Va. 303, 518 S.E.2d 60 (1999). Accord Hatfield v. Painter, 222 W.Va. 622, 633, 671 S.E.2d 453, 464 (2008) ("In summary, because the error, if any, was created by the defendant . . ., he has waived any claims he had regarding such err......
  • Rogers v. Ames, No. 19-0612
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • November 12, 2020
    ...... Daniel v . Legursky , 195 W.Va. 314, 328, 465 S.E.2d 416, 430 (1995) (citations omitted). Coleman v . Painter , 215 W. Va. 592, 596, 600 S.E.2d 304, 308 (2004).         Petitioner cannot satisfy either prong of Strickland/Miller in his argument ..., "[the] law of the case rule is not confined to civil cases, but applies also to rulings made by appellate courts in criminal cases." Hatfield v . Painter , 222 W. Va. 622, 632, 671 S.E.2d 453, 463 (2008) (internal citation omitted).         Petitioner has not asserted any material ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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