Opinion
20-0143
01-12-2022
Thomas E. Leftwich, Petitioner Below, Petitioner v. Donnie Ames, Superintendent, Mt. Olive Correctional Complex, Respondent Below, Respondent
(Raleigh County 10-C-22-B)
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Petitioner Thomas E. Leftwich, by counsel G. Todd Houck, appeals the order of the Circuit Court of Raleigh County, entered on January 28, 2020, dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Mr. Leftwich is incarcerated for a term of life, without mercy, for his 2008 conviction of first-degree murder by use of a firearm. He also is sentenced to serve a consecutive term of imprisonment for a term of one to five years for his conviction of conspiracy related to the same murder, the slaying of undercover police officer Cpl. Charles "Chuck" Smith of the Beckley Police Department. Mr. Leftwich was indicted with a co-defendant, convicted in a jury trial, and sentenced as described above. His petition for appeal was denied by this Court in 2009. Respondent State of West Virginia appears by counsel Patrick Morrisey and Mary Beth Niday.
This 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 order of the circuit court is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Mr. Leftwich filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Circuit Court of Raleigh County in 2010, asserting numerous grounds for relief. The circuit court dismissed the petition by a comprehensive order entered on January 28, 2020, that thoroughly addressed the grounds asserted by Mr. Leftwich.
The matter before us is an appeal from the circuit court's order of a dismissal of a petition for habeas corpus. We, accordingly, review as follows:
"In 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." Syllabus point 1, Mathena v. Haines, 219 W.Va. 417, 633 S.E.2d 771 (2006).Syl. Pt. 1, Meadows v. Mutter, 243 W.Va. 211, 842 S.E.2d 764 (2020). Further, a habeas petitioner bears the burden of establishing that he is entitled to the relief sought. See Markley v. Coleman, 215 W.Va. 729, 734, 601 S.E.2d 49, 54 (2004); Syl. Pts. 1 and 2, State ex rel. Scott v. Boles, 150 W.Va. 453, 147 S.E.2d 486 (1966).
On appeal, Mr. Leftwich asserts three assignments of error. He argues that the circuit court erred, first, in concluding that he failed to prove that he did not have effective assistance of counsel; second, in concluding that his constitutional right to assert self-defense was not violated; and, third, in concluding that his constitutional rights were not violated by the State's bolstering the credibility of a particular witness. With respect to the issues implicated in these assignments of error, Mr. Leftwich's arguments to this Court are nearly identical to the arguments he made to the circuit court in his underlying habeas action. It appears, in fact, that entire portions of Mr. Leftwich's amended habeas petition were pasted (albeit, reordered) into his appellate brief. In repackaging the arguments that were adequately addressed by the habeas court, Mr. Leftwich failed to argue or demonstrate that the habeas court's analysis was flawed or that its conclusions were in error. Thus, upon our review and consideration of the parties' arguments, the record on appeal, and pertinent legal authority, we find no error in the circuit court's order denying Mr. Leftwich post-conviction habeas corpus relief.
In light of our conclusion that the circuit court's order and the record on appeal reflect no clear error, we hereby adopt and incorporate the circuit court's findings and conclusions as they relate to petitioner's assignments of error raised herein and direct the Clerk to attach to this memorandum decision a copy of the circuit court's January 28, 2020, "Dismissal of Petition."
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.
Affirmed.
CONCURRED IN BY: Justice Elizabeth D. Walker Justice Tim Armstead Justice Evan H. Jenkins Justice William R. Wooton
DISQUALIFIED: Chief Justice John A. Hutchison