David Jones v. Debra Minnix, Warden (Memorandum Decision)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS David Jones, Petitioner FILED May 24, 2013 RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA vs) No. 12-0563 (Hancock County 09-P-49) Debra Minnix, Warden, Respondent MEMORANDUM DECISION Petitioner David Jones, by counsel D. Adrian Hoosier II, appeals the January 31, 2012 order of the Circuit Court of Hancock County denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Respondent Minnix, by counsel Marland L. Turner, has filed a response. The 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. In January of 2006, petitioner was indicted on the following four criminal counts: driving under the influence of controlled substances with minors; two counts of child neglect creating a substantial risk of injury; and driving under the influence of a controlled substance, second offense. Petitioner was tried, by a jury, in August of 2006 and was convicted of two counts of child neglect creating a substantial risk of injury and driving under the influence of a controlled substance. Petitioner was sentenced to two consecutive terms of one to ten years of incarceration for the convictions of child neglect creating substantial risk of injury, and to a concurrent term of one year in jail for the lone count of driving under the influence of a controlled substance. Following his conviction, petitioner filed a direct appeal with this Court, which was refused by order entered on June 27, 2007. Petitioner then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court and an omnibus hearing was held on September 26, 2011. The circuit court denied petitioner habeas relief by order entered on January 31, 2012. On appeal, petitioner alleges three assignments of error. First, he alleges that it was error to deny his petition for writ of habeas corpus, because the circuit court gave little weight or consideration to the ample evidence concerning his innocence, including evidence allegedly explaining his erratic driving pattern at the time of his arrest. According to petitioner, his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to introduce records supporting his assertion that glass from a recently broken windshield was blown into his eye, and the circuit court erred in discounting the repair and medical records introduced at the omnibus hearing. In his second assignment of error, petitioner alleges that the circuit court erred in failing to include findings of fact and conclusions of law as to petitioner s allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel in its order denying him habeas relief, in violation of Rule 4(c) of the West Virginia Rules Governing Post-Conviction 1 Habeas Corpus Proceedings. Third, petitioner also alleges that the circuit court failed to include findings of fact and conclusions of law in regard to its denial of habeas relief in light of substantial evidence introduced during the omnibus hearing that proves his innocence. This assignment of error also focuses on the introduction of repair and medical records that petitioner used to explain his erratic driving pattern at the time of his arrest. This Court has previously held that [i]n 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). After careful consideration of the parties arguments, this Court concludes that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus. In regard to petitioner s second and third assignments of error, a review of the order shows that petitioner s arguments lack merit. The circuit court clearly addressed all of petitioner s claims regarding alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and also addressed the evidence which allegedly proves petitioner s innocence. For these reasons, the Court finds no error in regard to the circuit court s findings of fact or conclusions of law. Having reviewed the circuit court s Order entered on January 31, 2012, we hereby adopt and incorporate the circuit court s well-reasoned findings and conclusions 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 find no error in the decision of the circuit court and its January 31, 2012, order denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus is affirmed. 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.
