J.W. v. Straughn
| Decision Date | 16 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | 22-0330 |
| Parties | J.W., Petitioner Below, Petitioner v. Shawn Straughn, Superintendent, Northern Regional Correctional Center, Respondent Below, Respondent |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Self-represented petitioner J.W.[1] appeals two orders of the Circuit Court of Ohio County, entered on April 7, 2022, and April 8, 2022 denying his third and fourth petitions for a writ of habeas corpus.[2] Upon our review, we determine that oral argument is unnecessary and that a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court's order is appropriate. See W.Va. R. App. P. 21.
On October 28, 2011, petitioner was sentenced in the Circuit Court of Ohio County to an aggregate term of incarceration of 215 to 705 years and fifty years of supervised release upon his conviction of four counts of first-degree sexual assault five counts of first-degree sexual abuse, and nine counts of sexual abuse by a person in a position of trust to a child. Thereafter, petitioner filed a direct appeal of his convictions with this Court. In State v. [J W.], No. 11-1643, 2013 WL 1632091 (W.Va. April 16 2013) (memorandum decision) ("J.W. I"), this Court affirmed petitioner's convictions. Id. at *1.
On July 17, 2013, petitioner filed his first petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court, asserting twenty-three grounds for relief.[3] The circuit court appointed habeas counsel to file an amended habeas petition on petitioner's behalf and set an omnibus habeas corpus hearing for October 31, 2013. Subsequently, the circuit court continued the October 31, 2013, omnibus hearing and held a status hearing on January 10, 2014. Petitioner was not present at the status hearing. However, habeas counsel stated that he had met with petitioner to review the Losh checklist and that petitioner insisted on raising all of the grounds set forth in his original petition.[4] Habeas counsel further stated that given the size of the record, he needed "additional time . . . to review the balance of the [trial] transcripts." Accordingly, the circuit court gave habeas counsel additional time and directed that an amended petition be filed on or before April 1, 2014. No amended petition was filed,[5] and the circuit court denied petitioner's original habeas petition by order entered on May 21, 2015.
On appeal, in [J.W.] v. Ballard, 238 W.Va. 730, 798 S.E.2d 856 (2017) ("J.W. II"),[6] this Court found that the circuit court failed to make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law justifying its denial of relief on the grounds asserted in the habeas petition. Id. at 733, 798 S.E.2d at 859. Accordingly, this Court reversed the May 21, 2015, order and remanded petitioner's case to the circuit court with directions to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law to support its ruling. Id. at 736, 798 S.E.2d at 862. On remand, the circuit court entered an order on August 24, 2017, denying petitioner's habeas petition and making comprehensive findings of fact and conclusions of law showing that each of petitioner's twenty-three grounds for relief was without merit. Petitioner did not immediately appeal the second denial of his habeas petition, but on September 25, 2017, filed a motion for relief from the August 24, 2017, order pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure. The circuit court denied petitioner's motion by order entered on December 27, 2017.
On January 4, 2018, petitioner appealed the denial of his first habeas petition a second time. In [J.W.] v. Ames, No. 18-0003, 2019 WL 2499329 (W.Va. June 17, 2019) (memorandum decision) ("J.W. III"), petitioner appealed both the circuit court's August 24, 2017, denial of his habeas petition and its December 27, 2017, denial of his Rule 60(b) motion. However, this Court declined to review the August 24, 2017, denial of the habeas petition, finding that it was not timely appealed. Id. at *2. The Court affirmed the denial of petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion. Id. at *4.
On July 24, 2019, petitioner filed his second habeas petition in the circuit court, reasserting his grounds for relief from his first petition. Petitioner further alleged that habeas counsel failed to provide effective assistance in the first habeas proceeding. The circuit court, by order entered on April 14, 2020, denied the second habeas petition. Petitioner appealed the April 14, 2020, order on May 5, 2020.
While the appeal of the denial of his second habeas petition was pending, petitioner discovered, based upon his review of a transcript, that Judge Michael J. Olejasz, who entered the April 14, 2020, order being appealed, attended a hearing in petitioner's criminal case as an assistant prosecutor. Accordingly, on February 8, 2021, petitioner filed a motion for Judge Olejasz's disqualification. Pursuant to West Virginia Trial Court Rule 17.01(b)(2), Judge Olejasz transmitted the disqualification motion to this Court's Chief Justice for a ruling. In his letter to the Chief Justice, Judge Olejasz stated that he did not recall his minimal involvement in petitioner's criminal case because he assisted another assistant prosecutor for one hearing only. The Chief Justice, by administrative order entered on March 11, 2021, disqualified Judge Olejasz from presiding over petitioner's second habeas proceeding.
Five days later, this Court affirmed Judge Olejasz's April 14, 2020, order denying petitioner's second habeas petition in [J.W.] v. Ames, No. 20-0540, 2021 WL 982758 (W.Va. Mar. 16, 2021) (memorandum decision) ("J.W. IV"). While not expressly addressing Judge Olejasz's disqualification, this Court in J.W. IV found that the critical findings for affirming the second habeas petition were not found in the April 14, 2020, order, but in the August 24, 2017, order entered by Judge James P. Mazzone following the remand from J.W. II. See J.W. IV, 2021 WL 982758, at *3-4. In J.W. IV, we found that the comprehensive findings in the August 24, 2017, order showed that all of petitioner's claims had been adjudicated and/or waived, and therefore, (1) no habeas hearing was required in the first habeas proceeding, and (2) the doctrine of res judicata was triggered by the first habeas proceeding to bar successive petitions outside of the narrow exceptions permitted by that doctrine. Id. at *3. While ineffective assistance of habeas counsel is one of the grounds that can be raised in a successive petition, we further found in J.W. IV that the findings in the August 24, 2017, order showed that the outcome of the first habeas proceeding would have been the same regardless of any deficiency of habeas counsel. Id. at *4. Thus, we affirmed the denial of petitioner's second habeas petition. Id. Following this Court's decision in J.W. IV, petitioner filed a petition for rehearing, but, in that petition, he did not raise the issue of Judge Olejasz's disqualification. This Court, by order entered on September 21, 2021, refused the petition for rehearing, and the decision in J.W. IV subsequently became final with the issuance of the mandate. See W.Va. Rul. App. P. 26(a).
Petitioner filed his third habeas petition in 2021 and his fourth habeas petition in 2022. With each petition, petitioner filed a motion for a habeas hearing, a motion for appointment of habeas counsel, and a motion asking the circuit court to certify to this Court certain questions that petitioner asserted needed to be answered regarding his prior habeas proceedings.[7] The circuit court, by separate orders entered on April 7, 2022, and April 8, 2022, denied the third and fourth habeas petitions, finding that petitioner previously "exhausted his grounds for habeas corpus relief" based upon the denial of the first habeas petition. In the April 8, 2022, order, the circuit court further found that all of petitioner's issues were "fully addressed or waived in prior [p]etitions[.]"[8]
Petitioner now appeals the circuit court's denials of his third and fourth habeas petitions. This Court reviews a circuit court order denying a habeas petition under the following standards:
Syl. Pts. 1 & 3, Anstey v. Ballard, 237 W.Va. 411, 787 S.E.2d 864 (2016). Because we have before us the denials of petitioner's third and fourth habeas petitions, we note that, once the doctrine of res judicata is triggered, a habeas petitioner my not raise "[any] matters [previously] raised and . . . [any] matters known or which with reasonable diligence could have been known[.]" Syl. Pt. 4, in part, Losh v. McKenzie, 166 W.Va. 762, 277 S.E.2d 606 (1981). Pursuant to Syllabus Point 4 of Losh, one of the narrow exceptions to the doctrine of res judicata is ineffective assistance of habeas counsel. 166 W.Va. at 762-63, 277 S.E.2d at 608.
On appeal, petitioner argues that he is entitled to a habeas hearing and the appointment of counsel on his...
To continue reading
Request your trial