Joseph Shaw v. David Ballard, Warden (Memorandum Decision)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS Joseph Shaw, Petitioner Below, Petitioner FILED vs) No. 12-0419 (Kanawha County 11-MISC-567) May 24, 2013 RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA David Ballard, Warden Respondent Below, Respondent MEMORANDUM DECISION Petitioner Joseph Shaw, pro se, appeals the circuit court s order entered March 12, 2012, denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Warden Ballard of Mount Olive Correctional Center, by counsel Laura Young, filed a response in support of the circuit court s order. 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 is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Petitioner entered a guilty plea for two counts of sexual assault, after being indicted by grand jury, in a criminal proceeding before the circuit court on September 25, 2006. Petitioner was sentenced to two consecutive terms of ten to twenty-five years of incarceration. On November 30, 2011, petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, that fraudulent statements were made and relied up on by the grand jury, which unduly pressured him to take a guilty plea, and that he was coerced into a guilty plea by counsel. The circuit court dismissed each of these arguments by stating that none of the identified acts of counsel were outside the broad range of professionally competent assistance. The circuit court further stated that petitioner specifically waived his right to challenge pretrial proceedings and that he freely, voluntarily, intelligently, knowingly, and understandingly tendered his written and oral guilty pleas. On appeal, petitioner argues the circuit court abused its discretion by denying him counsel and meaningful review of his habeas petition in a hearing. Petitioner further argues that the circuit court erred in stating that petitioner had waived all of his constitutional rights. Respondent argues that it is within the trial court s discretion to deny a habeas corpus petition without appointing counsel or conducting an omnibus hearing and that petitioner s case was adequately adjudicated in the March of 2012 order. 1 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. Syl. Pt. 1, Mathena v. Haines, 219 W. Va. 417, 633 S.E.2d 771 (2006). This Court has previously addressed the denial of a writ of habeas corpus without holding a hearing, as follows: A court having jurisdiction over habeas corpus proceedings 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. Syl. Pt. 1, Perdue v. Coiner, 156 W.Va. 467, 194 S.E.2d 657 (1973). Syl Pt. 2, State ex rel. Watson v. Hill, 200 W.Va. 201, 488 S.E.2d 476 (1997). The Court has carefully considered the merits of each of petitioner s arguments as set forth in his petition for appeal. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner s habeas corpus petition, because the circuit court gave specific findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the manner in which each ground raised in the petition has been previously and finally adjudicated or waived. Finding no error in the denial of habeas corpus relief, the Court incorporates and adopts the circuit court s detailed and well-reasoned order dated March 12, 2012, insofar as it addresses the assignments of error appealed herein, and directs the Clerk to attach the same hereto. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. Affirmed. ISSUED: May 24, 2013 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 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.
