Christopher Cunningham v. David Ballard, Warden (Memorandum Decision)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS Christopher Cunningham, Petitioner Below, Petitioner FILED June 10, 2013 RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA vs) No. 12-1118 (Berkeley County 11-C-965) David Ballard, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex, Respondent Below, Respondent MEMORANDUM DECISION Petitioner Christopher Cunningham s appeal, filed by counsel Christopher J. Prezioso, arises from the Circuit Court of Berkeley County, wherein petitioner s petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied by order entered on August 24, 2012. Respondent David Ballard, Warden, by counsel Cheryl K. Saville, filed a response in support of the circuit court s decision, to which petitioner submitted a reply. 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. Following petitioner s guilty plea to four felony counts of obtaining property in return for a worthless check, the trial court sentenced petitioner to serve four concurrent sentences of one to ten years in prison. Petitioner filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus in circuit court in August of 2012. Without holding an evidentiary hearing, the habeas court entered its sixteenpage order denying petitioner habeas corpus relief. This appeal followed. On appeal, petitioner reasserts assignments of error that he raised in circuit court. Petitioner argues that the circuit court committed reversible error by denying his writ without an evidentiary hearing when (1) there was probable cause to believe that petitioner was entitled to relief, (2) petitioner received ineffective assistance of trial counsel, (3) petitioner may have suffered from issues of competency at the time he entered his guilty plea, and (4) petitioner s sentence violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Respondent contends that the circuit court committed no error in its decision. Respondent argues that the documents submitted alongside petitioner s petition for writ of habeas corpus in circuit court demonstrated no entitlement to relief on any ground. Respondent argues that, accordingly, an evidentiary hearing was not required. In his reply, petitioner stands upon his previous arguments made in his initial brief. This Court reviews appeals of circuit court orders denying habeas corpus relief under the following standard: 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. 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). Our review of the record uncovers no error by the circuit court s decision to deny habeas corpus relief based on petitioner s arguments on appeal. The circuit court s order reflects its thorough findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning petitioner s arguments raised on appeal. The record on appeal reveals no support for any of petitioner s assignments of error. Having reviewed the circuit court s Final Order Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus entered on August 24, 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 affirm. Affirmed. ISSUED: June 10, 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.
