Hogan v. Ames
| Decision Date | 03 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 18-0493,18-0493 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | Terrick Hogan, Petitioner Below, Petitioner v. Donnie Ames, Superintendent, Mt. Olive Correctional Complex, Respondent Below, Respondent |
Petitioner Terrick Hogan, pro se, appeals the May 9, 2018, order of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Respondent Donnie Ames, Superintendent, Mt. Olive Correctional Complex,1 by counsel Julianne Wisman, filed a response in support of the circuit court's order. 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 conspired with Shayla Stephenson and Marcus Curtis to rob a fourth person, Kalvon Casdorph ("the victim"). According to the State, petitioner planned the robbery, Ms. Stephenson provided the gun, and Mr. Curtis carried the plan out. During the robbery, Mr. Curtis shot and killed the victim. The three participants were each indicted on one count of conspiracy, one count of first-degree robbery, and one count of first-degree murder.
On August 15, 2016, the circuit court held a hearing on petitioner's motion to suppress two incriminating statements he gave to the police. The court denied the motion. That same day, petitioner entered a plea agreement with the State. The State agreed to dismiss the conspiracy and robbery counts of the indictment in exchange for petitioner's guilty plea to first-degree murder. The parties agreed the appropriate disposition of petitioner's case was a life term of incarceration with the possibility of parole; therefore, pursuant to Rule 11(e)(1)(C) of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure, the circuit court would be required to impose that sentence if it accepted the plea agreement. Petitioner agreed to provide truthful testimony against his co-conspirators, if necessary. The State agreed not to file a recidivist information against petitioner. Finally, the parties agreed that petitioner would provide the factual basis for his guilty plea.
The circuit court held a plea hearing on August 16, 2016. The court noted that petitioner previously rejected the same proposed plea agreement and explained that petitioner was going to enter a guilty plea "a couple months or so ago" but "canceled" a prior plea hearing "after [a] while." Consequently, the court asked petitioner, "[a]re you sure you now want to do this?" Petitioner answered, "[y]es." The circuit court also inquired of the State regarding the nature of the plea agreement it had with petitioner's co-conspirator, Mr. Curtis. The assistant prosecutor answered, "[i]t is the exact same plea agreement." The court then asked petitioner if he requested that the court accept the plea agreement and impose a life sentence of incarceration with the possibility of parole. Petitioner responded, "[y]es, sir." The court inquired whether petitioner believed the plea agreement was in his best interests. Petitioner answered in the affirmative.
Next, the circuit court explained to petitioner the rights he would be giving up by pleading guilty such as the right to a jury trial, the right to testify in his own defense or to choose to remain silent, and the right to present witnesses. The court noted that petitioner exercised his right to seek the suppression of certain evidence at the previous day's hearing, but that his motion was denied. The court explained to petitioner that, by pleading guilty, he would waive the right to challenge such evidentiary rulings on appeal. The court asked if petitioner understood this. Petitioner responded, "[y]es, I do." The court inquired of the State as to whether discovery was provided to the defense. The assistant prosecutor answered affirmatively and noted that "[w]e've actually been to the state police headquarters to review the evidence and to look at all of it, even all of the stuff that was collected that day." The circuit court asked petitioner's attorney to confirm that defense counsel reviewed the evidence at the state police headquarters. Petitioner's attorney responded, "[t]hat is correct, Your Honor." Petitioner's counsel further confirmed that counsel was fully aware of the evidence the State would present at a trial. The court asked petitioner to confirm that he understood he had the right to move to "eliminate" any evidence that was obtained illegally. Petitioner indicated that he understood that he had that right and that he was waiving that right by pleading guilty.
Prior to accepting petitioner's guilty plea, the circuit court asked petitioner if he had any additional questions for his attorney. Petitioner and his attorney conferred off the record. Thereafter, petitioner indicated that he wanted to proceed with his guilty plea. The court then asked petitioner whether he was satisfied with his attorney's services. Petitioner responded in the affirmative. The circuit court noted that petitioner's attorney had "a lot of experience in criminal cases." When petitioner was asked if he "had plenty of opportunity to talk with [counsel] and let him advise [petitioner] about [his] case," Petitioner answered, "[y]es, I have."
The circuit court again inquired whether petitioner was willing to waive his rights and enter a guilty plea to first-degree murder. Petitioner responded, "[y]es, sir." The court then asked petitioner to indicate his plea to the charge of first-degree murder. Before answering, petitioner conferred again with his attorney. Thereafter, petitioner responded, "[g]uilty." The circuit court asked for the factual basis for the guilty plea. After a third consultation with his attorney, petitioner answered:
The circuit court informed petitioner that it was prepared to accept his guilty plea and asked one more time whether petitioner wanted to change his mind. Petitioner responded, "[n]o, sir." Accordingly, the court accepted petitioner's guilty plea and found that petitioner "voluntarily, intelligently, knowingly[,] and understandingly waive[d]" his constitutional rights. Accordingly, the circuit court found petitioner guilty of first-degree murder.
The circuit court inquired as to whether petitioner's sentencing should be delayed until after Mr. Curtis's sentencing set for the afternoon of August 16, 2016. The court explained that such a delay might be prudent in the event that "something happens in the Curtis case . . . regarding that plea," as it was more difficult to withdraw a guilty plea after sentencing occurred. Therefore, the circuit court delayed petitioner's sentencing until after Mr. Curtis's sentencing. The record reflects that Mr. Curtis's sentencing occurred as planned and the circuit court then reconvened petitioner's sentencing hearing. After another discussion with his counsel, petitioner waived the preparation of a presentence investigation report. Thereafter, in accordance with the parties' plea agreement, the circuit court sentenced petitioner to a life term of incarceration with the possibility of parole.
On March 17, 2017, and April 10, 2017, petitioner filed pro se motions to vacate his guilty plea, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The circuit court denied those motions by order entered April 25, 2017. Petitioner attempted to appeal the circuit court's April 25, 2017, order to this Court. However, this Court refused to docket the appeal by order entered July 5, 2017, due to noncompliance with court rules.2
On May 1, 2018, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and an involuntary guilty plea. On May 9, 2018, the circuit court denied the petition, finding that:
Whereupon, the [c]ourt, after giving due and mature consideration to said written petition and after reviewing the official court file in said action, is of the opinion that a hearing is not necessary in order for the [c]ourt to make a decision in this matter and further finds that good cause or other justification does not exist to grant said request. Therefore, the [c]ourt is of the opinion and does hereby ORDER that [p]etitioner's "WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS" be and the same is hereby DENIED.
It is from the circuit court's May 9, 2018, order that petitioner appeals. In Syllabus Point 1 of Anstey v. Ballard, 237 W. Va. 411, 787 S.E.2d 864 (2016), we held:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial