Opinion
No. 12-0616
04-16-2013
Oliver Jarrell, Petitioner, Petitioner v. David Ballard, Warden, Mt. Olive Correctional Complex, Respondent, Respondent
(Jackson County 07-C-148, 07-C-150)
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Petitioner Oliver Jarrell, by counsel Drannon L. Adkins, appeals the April 26, 2012 order of the Circuit Court of Jackson County reentering its prior judgment denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Respondent Ballard, by counsel, has filed a response, to which petitioner has filed a reply. Petitioner has also filed a supplemental appendix.
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 is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Following a jury trial, petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and conspiracy in 1999. He was thereafter sentenced to incarceration for life, without mercy, and a term of incarceration of one to five years, said sentences to run consecutively. Petitioner appealed this conviction and the Court refused the same in January of 2001. In 2002, petitioner filed his first petition for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court. After being appointed counsel and filing an amended petition, the circuit court summarily denied petitioner habeas relief. Petitioner appealed the denial, but this Court refused that appeal in November of 2004. In October of 2007, petitioner filed a second petition for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court. He was again appointed counsel and an amended petition was filed. After holding an omnibus hearing, the circuit court denied petitioner habeas relief.
On appeal, petitioner alleges that the circuit court erred in denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. In support, petitioner alleges that the circuit court erred in failing to conclude that petitioner's conviction was obtained by the use of a coerced confession because the trial court improperly denied a motion to suppress the confession and because petitioner is of such a low level of intellectual functioning that he could not have knowingly and intelligently waived his constitutional rights. Further, petitioner alleges that the circuit court erred in failing to conclude that petitioner's conviction was obtained by the use of evidence obtained pursuant to an unconstitutional search and seizure because the investigating officers did not have a search warrant when they entered petitioner's property to recover the murder weapon and because no exigent circumstances existed to allow them to act without a warrant. Lastly, petitioner alleges that the circuit court erred in failing to conclude that both trial counsel and prior habeas counsel were ineffective. In relation to trial counsel, petitioner asserts, among other things, that counsel prevented him from testifying, failed to object to substantial hearsay statements from witnesses, failed to adduce any evidence during petitioner's case-in-chief, failed to move the lower court for bifurcation of guilt and mercy, and failed to call witnesses to support mercy. Petitioner also asserts that trial counsel failed to file a meaningful appeal of the conviction. In regard to prior habeas counsel, petitioner asserts that by failing to elicit further grounds for habeas relief, petitioner was deprived of a full and fair hearing on the merits of his original habeas petition.
Respondent argues that the circuit court did not err in denying petitioner habeas relief. In support, respondent argues that all of petitioner's claims in this second habeas corpus proceeding were actually barred by res judicata because the circuit court previously ruled on petitioner's first petition for writ of habeas corpus and this Court refused the subsequent appeal. As such, respondent argues that the only claim petitioner was entitled to raise in this second habeas proceeding was ineffective assistance of prior habeas counsel. However, respondent notes that the circuit court fully addressed all claims and argues that denial of the petition was proper. In response to petitioner's specific allegations, respondent argues that petitioner has failed to articulate a reason the circuit court's findings and conclusions should be set aside. Lastly, respondent argues that petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of prior habeas counsel is essentially moot in light of the circuit court's decision to fully consider all grounds asserted in this second petition for writ of habeas corpus.
This Court has previously held that
[i]n reviewing challenges to the findings and conclusions of the circuit court in a habeas corpus action, we apply a three-prong standard of review. We review the final order and the ultimate disposition under an abuse of discretion standard; the underlying factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard; and questions of law are subject to a de novo review.Syl. Pt. 1, Mathena v. Haines, 219 W.Va. 417, 633 S.E.2d 771 (2006). After careful consideration of the parties' arguments, this Court concludes that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Further, in regard to petitioner's assignment of error regarding alleged ineffective assistance of prior habeas counsel, the Court finds that the circuit court did not need to address this issue in light of its full consideration of all issues raised in the subject petition for writ of habeas corpus. Having reviewed the circuit court's "Judgment Order" entered on January 20, 2011, we hereby adopt and incorporate the circuit court's well-reasoned findings and conclusions as to the assignments of error raised in this appeal. The Clerk is directed to attach a copy of the circuit court's order to this memorandum decision.
For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the decision of the circuit court and its January 20, 2011 order denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus is affirmed.
Affirmed.
CONCURRED IN BY:
Chief Justice Brent D. Benjamin
Justice Robin Jean Davis
Justice Margaret L. Workman
Justice Menis E. Ketchum
Justice Allen H. Loughry II