Henry Jenkins v. David Ballard, Warden (Memorandum Decision)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS Henry Jenkins, Petitioner Below, Petitioner FILED April 12, 2016 vs) No. 15-0454 (Fayette County 12-C-283) David Ballard, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex, Respondent Below, Respondent RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA MEMORANDUM DECISION Petitioner Henry Jenkins, by counsel Lori M. Waller, appeals the Circuit Court of Fayette County’s February 9, 2015, order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Respondent David Ballard, Warden, by counsel Jonathan E. Porter, filed a response. Petitioner filed a reply. On appeal, petitioner argues that the circuit court erred in denying his habeas petition on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. 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. Petitioner was convicted of felony murder and child neglect resulting in death following a three-day jury trial in 2010. The circuit court sentenced petitioner to a term of imprisonment of life with mercy for felony murder and a consecutive term of incarceration of three to fifteen years for child neglect resulting in death. In 2011, petitioner filed a direct appeal with this Court arguing that his convictions violated the prohibition against double jeopardy, the State presented insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for felony murder, and improper jury instructions. Petitioner also argued that the circuit court’s decision to suppress his statement only during the State’s case-in-chief was erroneous and that the circuit court erroneously permitted the admission of gruesome photographs and character evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence. By decision dated June 21, 2012, this Court affirmed petitioner’s convictions. See State v. Jenkins, 229 W.Va. 415, 729 S.E.2d 250 (2012). In August of 2014, petitioner, pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus relief in the circuit court. Thereafter, petitioner filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus relief, with the advice of counsel, alleging numerous grounds for relief, including multiple allegations that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After two omnibus evidentiary hearings, the circuit court denied petitioner post-conviction habeas corpus relief by order entered February 9, 2015. It is from this order that petitioner appeals. 1 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 reasserts the same claims that were rejected by the circuit court. Petitioner reasserts that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to 1) subpoena a witness to authenticate medical records to show that he attended the victim’s regular doctor appointments; 2) subpoena or call a medical expert to testify what effect the victim’s underlying medical conditions contributed to his death; 3) call character witnesses on his behalf; 4) object to inappropriate or prejudicial statements by the prosecutor; 5) make continuous objections throughout the trial and seek appropriate curative instructions; and 6) file a motion for change of venue due to pretrial publicity. Petitioner also reasserts that his trial counsel was ineffective for admitting an element of a crime. He again argues that all of these errors constitute cumulative error warranting reversal of the circuit court’s order. 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 ninety-four page 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 February 9, 2015, “Order Denying and Dismissing Petition” to this memorandum decision. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. Affirmed. ISSUED: April 12, 2016 CONCURRED IN BY: Chief Justice Menis E. Ketchum Justice Robin Jean Davis 2 Justice Brent D. Benjamin Justice Margaret L. Workman 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.
