John J. Grant v. Patrick Mirandy, Warden (Memorandum Decision)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS John J. Grant, Petitioner Below, Petitioner FILED September 21, 2015 vs) No. 15-0003 (Berkeley County 11-C-909) RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA Patrick Mirandy, Warden, St. Mary’s Correctional Center, Respondent Below, Respondent MEMORANDUM DECISION Petitioner John J. Grant, by counsel Ben J. Crawley-Woods, appeals the Circuit Court of Berkeley County’s December 1, 2014, order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Respondent Patrick Mirandy, Warden, by counsel Christopher C. Quasebarth, filed a response. Petitioner filed a reply. On appeal, petitioner alleges that the circuit court erred in denying his habeas petition because he established that he was entitled to relief based upon newly discovered evidence and the State’s suppression of exculpatory evidence. 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 October of 2006, petitioner was indicted on one count of first-degree murder for the shooting death of Donald Redman. Following trial, the jury convicted petitioner of the lesser included offense of second-degree murder. Thereafter, in March of 2008, the circuit court sentenced petitioner to a term of incarceration of forty years. Petitioner then appealed his conviction to this Court, which refused the same by order entered on October 29, 2009. In October of 2011, petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. After counsel was appointed, petitioner filed a second amended petition alleging the following grounds for relief: 1) newly discovered evidence in the form of post-conviction affidavits from his co defendant and a witness at trial; 2) the State’s knowing presentation of false testimony; 3) ineffective assistance of counsel; 4) sufficiency of the evidence; and 5) admission of letters petitioner wrote while awaiting trial. Petitioner later supplemented this petition with an additional affidavit. The circuit court then held an omnibus evidentiary hearing, after which it denied petitioner habeas relief. It is from this order that petitioner appeals. This Court reviews appeals of circuit court orders denying habeas corpus relief under the 1 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 to this Court, petitioner reasserts his claims that the circuit court erred in denying him a new trial based on newly discovered evidence and the State’s failure to provide him with exculpatory evidence. The Court, however, does not agree. 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 these alleged errors, which were also argued below. Indeed, the circuit court’s order includes well-reasoned findings and conclusions as to the assignments of error raised on appeal. 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 as they relate to petitioner’s assignments of error raised herein and direct the Clerk to attach a copy of the circuit court’s December 1, 2014, “Final Order Denying Petition For Habeas Corpus” to this memorandum decision. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. Affirmed. ISSUED: September 21, 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 2
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.
