State Va. v. Vanhoose, s. 35483
| Citation | 227 W.Va. 37,705 S.E.2d 544 |
| Decision Date | 14 October 2010 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 35483,35478.,s. 35483 |
| Court | Supreme Court of West Virginia |
| Parties | STATE of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Appellee,v.Meredith Lee VANHOOSE, Defendant Below, Appellant.andState of West Virginia Ex Rel. Meredith Lee VanHoose, Appellant,v.Evelyn Seifert, Warden, Northern Correctional Facility, Appellee. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court
1. .” Syllabus point 1, State v. Foddrell, 171 W.Va. 54, 297 S.E.2d 829 (1982).
2. .” Syllabus point 1, State ex rel. Shorter v. Hey, 170 W.Va. 249, 294 S.E.2d 51 (1981).
3. Syllabus point 2, State v. Foddrell, 171 W.Va. 54, 297 S.E.2d 829 (1982).
4. “In the West Virginia courts, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are to be governed by the two-pronged test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984):(1) Counsel's performance was deficient under an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different.” Syllabus point 5, State v. Miller, 194 W.Va. 3, 459 S.E.2d 114 (1995).
5. “In deciding ineffective ... assistance claims, a court need not address both prongs of the conjunctive standard of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and State v. Miller, 194 W.Va. 3, 459 S.E.2d 114 (1995), but may dispose of such a claim based solely on a petitioner's failure to meet either prong of the test.” Syllabus point 5, State ex rel. Daniel v. Legursky, 195 W.Va. 314, 465 S.E.2d 416 (1995).
Ronald G. Salmons, Paul David Knipp, West Hamlin, WV, for Appellant.Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Attorney General, Thomas W. Smith, Managing Deputy Attorney General, Charleston, WV, for Appellees.
This case involves two consolidated appeals brought by Meredith Lee VanHoose (hereinafter “Mr. VanHoose”). The first appeal derives from a September 8, 2000, order of the Circuit Court of Cabell County sentencing Mr. VanHoose to life imprisonment with mercy and to a consecutive sentence of forty years imprisonment 1 following his conditional plea of guilty to one count of first-degree murder and one count of second-degree murder.2 The second appeal is from an order of the Circuit Court of Cabell County denying Mr. VanHoose's request for habeas corpus relief, which request was based upon an alleged failure of his initial appellate counsel to file an appeal of his conviction. The errors assigned by Mr. VanHoose in these appeals are: (1) he was denied a speedy trial under the one-term rule of W. Va.Code § 62–3–1 (1981) (Repl.Vol.2005); (2) he was denied a speedy trial under the three-term rule of W. Va.Code § 62–3–21 (1959) (Repl.Vol.2005); and (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel because of his initial appellate counsel's failure to file an appeal of his conviction. After a careful review of the briefs, listening to the arguments of the parties, and consideration of the record submitted on appeal, we affirm the circuit court's sentencing order and its order denying habeas corpus relief.
On March 25, 1998, Mr. VanHoose made a 911 emergency phone call from his apartment in Huntington, West Virginia.3 During that phone call, Mr. VanHoose stated that his wife, Michelle VanHoose, shot and killed two intruders. Officers from the Huntington police department responded to the 911 call. When the officers arrived at Mr. VanHoose's apartment, they found the dead bodies of Eric Glen Smith 4 and James Nichols Flowers.5 Both men had been shot with a high powered rifle.
The medical examiner determined that Mr. Smith was shot in the temple at close range, causing his brain to protrude from his skull. Mr. Flowers was shot in the left arm and head. Further, it was determined that after Mr. Flowers was initially shot in the left arm, he apparently fell to the floor and raised his right hand to shield the back of his head. As his right hand was raised, a bullet passed through his hand and tore off the back of his head.
After the police arrived and took control of the crime scene, they transported the VanHooses to police headquarters to be interviewed. During the interview, Mr. VanHoose informed the police that he and his wife were at home when they heard a knock at the door. Mr. VanHoose stated that he told his wife to tell whomever was at the door that he was not home. Mr. VanHoose then went to the bedroom. While in the bedroom, Mr. VanHoose stated that he heard noises and came out of the bedroom, where he saw his wife being attacked by Mr. Flowers and Mr. Smith. Mr. VanHoose further stated that he began fighting with the two men, and that, during this struggle, his wife retrieved a rifle and shot both men.6
On March 26, 1998, the day after the police interviewed the VanHooses, Mr. VanHoose contacted the police by phone and stated that he wanted to change his story about the shooting. Mr. VanHoose was told that he would be contacted by the detective investigating the matter. The detective, A. Meek, returned Mr. VanHoose's phone call. Mr. VanHoose told detective Meek that he was the one who actually shot the two men, not his wife. In this version of his story, Mr. VanHoose again stated that he was in the bedroom when he heard noise. Mr. VanHoose stated that he came out of the bedroom with his rifle and that, after seeing his wife being attacked by the two men, he shot and killed them. Mr. VanHoose told the detective that he lied the first time he was interviewed because he was scared and that, because his wife was a juvenile, he knew she would not be arrested. Mr. VanHoose agreed to come to police headquarters later that day to give a more detailed statement. However, when Mr. VanHoose arrived at police headquarters, he stated that he did not wish to give a statement without first obtaining a lawyer. At that time, the police did not arrest Mr. VanHoose.
During further investigation of the shootings, the police interviewed Virginia Mae Brown, who lived in the same apartment complex as Mr. VanHoose. Ms. Brown stated that, on the day of the shooting, she was outside her apartment talking and listening to music, and she saw Mr. VanHoose and his wife come home and go into their apartment. About fifteen minutes after Mr. VanHoose and his wife entered their apartment, Ms. Brown stated that she observed two men get out of a pick-up truck and go to the door of the VanHooses. According to Ms. Brown, the men knocked on the door; Mr. VanHoose answered the door; and he let the two men inside the apartment. Ms. Brown further declared that about ten to fifteen minutes after the men entered the apartment, she heard four gunshots. A few minutes after she heard the gunshots, Ms. Brown said that she saw Mrs. VanHoose open the door and look outside.7
The police also took a statement from Lorengo Barrozo, who lived in an apartment adjacent to the VanHooses. Mr. Barrozo stated that, on the day of the killings, he was in his apartment when he heard four or five loud noises that sounded like cherry bombs. According to Mr. Barrozo, he heard a baby crying in the VanHooses' apartment,8 so he put his ear to the adjoining wall. While listening for further sounds coming from the VanHooses' apartment, Mr. Barrozo stated that he heard a female voice say “Why, why, why did you do this for?” Mr. Barrozo also related that he heard additional conversation but could not understand what was being said.
Additionally, the police took a statement from Stacy Cox, who also lived in the same apartment complex as the VanHooses. Ms. Cox stated that she heard what sounded like gunshots coming from the VanHooses' apartment. After hearing the gunshots, Ms. Cox stated that she heard a male voice in the VanHooses' apartment say, “What did he do to you?” She then heard a female voice respond, “Nothing.”
Furthermore, the police interviewed John E. Dunfee, a friend of the murder victims. Mr. Dunfee informed the police that he and the two victims had met Mr. VanHoose while attending a vocational technical school. Mr. Dunfee also stated that he and Mr. Flowers had previously visited Mr. VanHoose's apartment to drink beer and smoke marijuana.9
Finally, the police interviewed Amy Miller, Mr. Flowers' girlfriend, who told the police that the VanHooses had been to her home on several occasions. Ms. Miller stated that earlier in March 1998, she and Mr. Flowers had accompanied the VanHooses to Kentucky. Finally, Ms. Miller said that she and Mr. Flowers had visited the VanHooses on the day before Mr. Flowers was killed.
On or about March 30, 1998, the police arrested Mr. VanHoose on charges of murdering Mr. Flowers and Mr. Smith.10 On September 18, 1998, a grand jury returned a two-count indictment charging Mr. VanHoose with the first-degree murder of Mr. Flowers and Mr. Smith.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hogan v. Ames
...the August 16, 2016, hearing transcript shows that the issues raised by petitioner are without merit See State v. VanHoose, 227 W. Va. 37, 50 n.39, 705 S.E.2d 544, 557 n.39 (2010) (finding that a remand was not necessary because the record was adequately developed in that case); State ex re......
-
State v. Morris, 12-1222
...has been denied a speedy trial." Syllabus point 2, State v. Foddrell, 171 W.Va. 54, 297 S.E.2d 829 (1982). Syl. Pt. 3, State v. VanHoose, 227 W.Va. 37, 705 S.E.2d 544 (2010). Upon our review, the Court finds no violation of petitioner's right to a speedy trial as codified in West Virginia C......
-
Jeffers v. Terry, 17-0490
...that a remand is not necessary in this case because the issues raised by petitioner are without merit See State v. VanHoose, 227 W.Va. 37, 50 n.39, 705 S.E.2d 544, 557 n.39 (2010) (finding that a remand was not necessary because the record was adequately developed in that case). Though not ......
-
Vanhoose v. Seifert, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-0448
...September 7, 2000, one day before the scheduled trial date, Petitioner entered a conditional guilty plea. See generally State v. VanHoose, 705 S.E.2d 544 (W. Va. 2010) (opinion in Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia habeas proceeding); ECF No. 9, Exs. 1, 2, 5, 6 (state trial court pro......