Justin Kasey Weikle v. William J. Vest, Warden (Memorandum Decision)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED Justin Kasey Weikle, Petitioner Below, Petitioner February 9, 2015 RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA vs) No. 13-1278 (Mercer County 12-C-223) William J. Vest, Warden, Respondent Below, Respondent MEMORANDUM DECISION Petitioner Justin Weikle, by counsel Natalie N. Hager, appeals the Circuit Court of Mercer County’s November 18, 2013, order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Respondent William J. Vest, Warden,1 by counsel Laura Young, filed a response. On appeal, petitioner alleges that the circuit court erred in denying habeas relief on the following grounds: disproportionate sentence, involuntary guilty plea, ineffective assistance of counsel, incompetence at the time of the crimes, and excessive bail. 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 circuit court’s order is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Petitioner was arraigned in a Mercer County Magistrate Court in August of 2009 on five counts of forgery, four counts of uttering, and one count of attempted uttering. Records indicate that petitioner faced additional charges in Monroe and Greenbrier Counties, as well as in the State of Virginia. The Mercer County matter was then bound over to a grand jury. In February of 2010, petitioner and counsel appeared in circuit court and consented, by oral and written waiver, to the filing of an information charging him with one count of fraudulent schemes, two counts of forgery, and two counts of uttering.2 On the same date, the circuit court held a plea hearing during which petitioner pled guilty to all five counts from the information. In return, the State agreed not to pursue additional charges in Mercer County arising out of the theft and use of checkbooks or credit cards belonging to several individuals and a lumber company. The State also agreed to recommend that any sentences run concurrent with any sentence arising from the 1 Pursuant to Rule 41(c) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, we have substituted the respondent party’s name with Warden William J. Vest because petitioner is currently incarcerated at Beckley Correctional Center. 2 The State filed the information that same month. 1 Monroe County charges and not to prosecute petitioner as a habitual offender. In March of 2010, the circuit court sentenced petitioner to consecutive terms of incarceration of one to ten years for each of the five counts to which he pled, resulting in an effective sentence of five to fifty years. Thereafter, petitioner filed one motion for reconsideration of his sentence by counsel, and three additional pro se motions for reconsideration, all of which were denied. In April of 2012, petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. After the circuit court appointed counsel, petitioner’s attorney filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus later that year. The circuit court held an omnibus evidentiary hearing in October of 2012, after which it denied the amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. This appeal followed. This Court reviews appeals of circuit court orders denying habeas corpus relief under the following standard: “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, State ex rel. Franklin v. McBride, 226 W.Va. 375, 701 S.E.2d 97 (2009). On appeal, petitioner re-asserts the same claims that were rejected by the circuit court. First, petitioner re-asserts that his sentence was excessive and disproportionate to the character and degree of his offenses. He further re-asserts that his guilty plea was involuntary because he was not educated about the nature and consequences of his plea. Petitioner re-asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective because (1) she failed to request that the circuit court hold the motion for reconsideration in abeyance until all pending criminal charges against petitioner in other jurisdictions were resolved, (2) she told him some of his sentences would be ordered to run concurrently, (3) she failed to file a motion to reduce bond, and (4) she allowed another attorney, David Smith, to represent petitioner at sentencing without requiring Mr. Smith to confer with petitioner prior to sentencing. Finally, petitioner re-asserts that he was incompetent at the time the offenses were committed and, therefore, lacked criminal intent, and that his bail was excessive. Upon our review and consideration of the circuit court’s order, the parties’ arguments, and record submitted on appeal, we find no error or abuse of discretion by the circuit court. Our review of the record supports the circuit court’s decision to deny petitioner post-conviction habeas corpus relief based on the errors he assigns on appeal, which were also argued below. Indeed, the circuit court’s order includes well-reasoned findings and conclusions as to all of the assignments of error raised herein. Given our conclusion that the circuit court’s order and the record before us reflect no clear error or abuse of discretion, we hereby adopt and incorporate the circuit court’s findings and conclusions and direct the Clerk to attach a copy of the circuit court’s November 18, 2013, “Order Denying Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad 2 Subjiciendum And Removing It From The Court’s Active Docket” to this memorandum decision. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. Affirmed. ISSUED: February 9, 2015 CONCURRED IN BY: Chief Justice Margaret L. Workman Justice Robin Jean Davis Justice Brent D. Benjamin Justice Menis E. Ketchum Justice Allen H. Loughry II 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
