Robbie Campbell v. Marvin Plumley, Warden (Memorandum Decision)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED Robbie Campbell, Petitioner Below, Petitioner August 31, 2015 RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA vs) No. 14-0688 (Logan County 12-C-241) Marvin Plumley, Warden, Huttonsville Correctional Center, Respondent Below, Respondent MEMORANDUM DECISION Petitioner Robbie Campbell, by counsel Benjamin Mishoe, appeals the Circuit Court of Logan County’s June 18, 2014, order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Respondent Marvin Plumley, Warden, by counsel Jonathan Porter, filed a response.1 On appeal, petitioner alleges that the circuit court erred in denying habeas relief on the following grounds: that petitioner entered an involuntary guilty plea; that he received ineffective assistance of counsel; and the circuit court failed to hold an omnibus evidentiary hearing. 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. In September of 2008, a Logan County grand jury indicted petitioner on one count of murder of the first degree in the shooting death of Thomas Adkins. Following a three-day jury trial, petitioner was convicted of one count of murder of the first degree without the recommendation of mercy. Thereafter, petitioner filed a motion for a new trial. In January of 2010, the circuit court granted petitioner’s motion for a new trial on the ground that petitioner’s right to a trial by an impartial and objective jury was violated because a juror failed to acknowledge knowing two witnesses during voir dire and admitted to advising the jury about fire damage of the victim’s residence. Several months later, petitioner pled guilty to one count of murder of the first degree. In exchange for his guilty plea, the State agreed to recommend that 1 In the circuit court proceeding, the actual respondent was David Ballard, Warden of Mount Olive Correctional Center where petitioner was housed at the time his petition was filed. Petitioner has subsequently been transferred to Huttonsville Correctional Center. Pursuant to Rule 41(c) of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure, the appropriate party has been substituted in the style of this matter. 1 petitioner receive mercy as part of his life sentence. Thereafter, the circuit court sentenced petitioner to life in prison with the recommendation of mercy, in accordance with West Virginia Code § 61-2-2. In September of 2012, petitioner, pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Thereafter, petitioner’s appointed counsel filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, mistaken advice of counsel as to parole eligibility, that he received a more severe sentence, and that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made. The State filed a response. By order entered June 18, 2014, the circuit court summarily denied petitioner post-conviction habeas relief. It is from this order that petitioner appeals. 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 argues that the circuit court erred in dismissing his amended petition without holding an omnibus evidentiary hearing and in failing to set forth specific findings of fact and conclusions of law as to why an evidentiary hearing was not required in accordance with Rule 9(a) of the Rules Governing Post-Conviction Habeas Corpus Proceedings in West Virginia. Upon review of the record, we find no error in the circuit court’s order denying the petition without first holding an omnibus evidentiary hearing. We have previously held that a circuit court “may deny a petition for a writ of habeas corpus without a hearing and without appointing counsel for the petitioner if the petition, exhibits, affidavits or other documentary evidence filed therewith show to such court’s satisfaction that the petitioner is entitled to no relief.” Syllabus Point 1, Perdue v. Coiner, 156 W.Va. 467, 194 S.E.2d 657 (1973). Syl. Pt. 3, in part, Markley v. Coleman, 215 W.Va. 729, 601 S.E.2d 49 (2004). The record on appeal reveals that petitioner’s allegations in support of his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel were based on petitioner’s self-serving statements and without additional proof. Further, the circuit court found that evidence submitted in support of his claim that he did not knowingly and voluntarily enter into his guilty plea or that his sentence was more severe than expected established that petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief. As part of petitioner’s written plea agreement, the State agreed to “recommend mercy which means if granted by the Court that he would be eligible for parole after having served fifteen years[.]” Further, petitioner’s “Petition to Enter Guilty Plea” contains a handwritten portion acknowledging that first-degree murder with a 2 recommendation of mercy carries a penalty of “life in prison with possibility of parole after serving [fifteen] years.” For these reasons, the Court finds no error in the circuit court’s order denying the amended petition for writ of habeas corpus without holding an omnibus evidentiary hearing. The circuit court set forth sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law as to why an evidentiary hearing was not required. Petitioner also re-asserts the same arguments that the circuit court rejected below. Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel improperly explained his sentence. Petitioner also argues that he did not knowingly and intelligently plead guilty to murder of the first degree because the circuit court violated Rule 11(c)(1) of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure by failing to explain the minimum and maximum penalty for his crime. Upon our review and consideration of the circuit court’s order, the parties’ arguments, and the 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 in this appeal, which were also argued below. Having reviewed the circuit court’s “Order,” entered June 18, 2014, we hereby adopt and incorporate the circuit court’s well-reasoned findings and conclusions of law 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 affirm. Affirmed. ISSUED: August 31, 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.
