Martez Griffin vs. Charles Williams (Memorandum Decision)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED February 19, 2021 EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA Martez Griffin, Petitioner Below, Petitioner vs.) No. 19-0688 (Kanawha County 17-P-406) Charles Williams, Superintendent, Huttonsville Correctional Center Respondent Below, Respondent MEMORANDUM DECISION Petitioner Martez Griffin, by counsel Charles R. Hamilton, appeals the Circuit Court of Kanawha County’s July 2, 2019, order denying his amended petition for a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus. Respondent State of West Virginia, by counsel Andrea Nease Proper, 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 affirming the order of the circuit court is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. In September of 2015, petitioner devised a plan with three associates to rob the victim, Bryson Ward. Video surveillance showed petitioner, along with an associate, entering the victim’s apartment on September 22, 2015. A witness described that, upon entering the apartment, petitioner hit the victim with a large rock, causing the victim to bleed. Ultimately, petitioner demanded, and the victim surrendered, approximately nine bundles of heroin and $11,000.00 in cash to petitioner. While the victim was not killed by petitioner’s hand, in an attempt to escape the apartment during the robbery, the victim fell out of a ninth-floor window to his death. Upon receipt of the victim’s bounty, petitioner fled the scene and traveled to Arkansas. Text messages from petitioner’s associates linked petitioner to the crime. Further, two of petitioner’s associates made statements implicating petitioner in the robbery and beating of the victim. Petitioner was arrested in Arkansas and charged with first-degree murder. Ultimately, petitioner was returned to West Virginia and Attorney Clinton Smith was appointed as petitioner’s counsel. On April 26, 2016, Attorney Smith filed numerous motions on petitioner’s behalf, including motions for discovery and suppression of certain evidence. At a May 6, 2016, plea hearing, petitioner accepted a binding plea agreement, pled guilty to first-degree robbery, and 1 acknowledged that, in return, he would receive a sixty-year sentence. During the plea hearing, petitioner acknowledged that his counsel went over all of the State’s evidence with him and discussed possible defenses that could be asserted. Additionally, petitioner acknowledged that he understood his constitutional rights and that his counsel had discussed with him the specific rights waived by his guilty plea. Petitioner also agreed that his counsel completed “an adequate and proper investigation of this case” and that counsel did everything asked of him by petitioner. Petitioner further stated that he was “completely satisfied” with the representation he received from counsel. During the plea colloquy petitioner admitted to striking the victim, threatening the victim, and leaving with the victim’s drugs and money. Thereafter, on May 6, 2016, before the actual imposition of his sentence, petitioner filed, pro se, a motion for reconsideration of sentence arguing that his sentence was too harsh, that others similarly situated got an alternative sentence, 1 and that he was under the influence of drugs during the crime. On May 27, 2016, petitioner was sentenced to sixty years in prison. Petitioner was appointed appellate counsel who, on June 21, 2016, filed a direct appeal on petitioner’s behalf, arguing that petitioner’s sentence was excessive and that his trial counsel was ineffective. Petitioner’s sentence was affirmed by this Court in a memorandum decision issued on June 9, 2017. State v. Griffin, No. 16-0594, 2017 WL 2492799 (W. Va. June 9, 2017) (memorandum decision). On October 31, 2017, petitioner filed, pro se, a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Petitioner argued that his trial counsel failed to investigate petitioner’s claim of innocence and coerced petitioner into pleading guilty. Further, petitioner argued that his trial counsel: failed to meet with him or discuss any indictment defects with him; failed to disclose the plea agreements of petitioner’s co-defendants; failed to hire a private investigator; told petitioner he could not rescind his plea; and failed to interview witnesses. Petitioner further argued that his appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to file a motion for reduction of sentence. The circuit court appointed petitioner habeas counsel who filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus on petitioner’s behalf. In this amended petition, petitioner argued involuntary guilty plea, ineffective assistance of counsel, defects in the indictment, and a more severe sentence than expected. Respondent filed an extensive response in opposition to petitioner’s amended petition. An omnibus hearing was held in the circuit court on March 21, 2019, at which petitioner and his trial counsel testified. During this hearing, petitioner was critical of his trial counsel’s failure to view surveillance videos of the crime scene. While trial counsel admitted that he did not view the surveillance video of the crime scene, he did view the video of petitioner’s confession. Petitioner argued that the surveillance video, which undisputedly shows petitioner entering the residence of the victim, was exculpatory as to the murder charge against petitioner. Petitioner’s 1 It is undisputed that petitioner’s co-defendants received lesser sentences. However, it was established that petitioner was the “mastermind” of the robbery scheme; that petitioner inflicted physical harm upon the victim; and that petitioner “actually took part in the robbery, unlike two of the other defendants.” 2 trial counsel acknowledged that he recommended that petitioner accept the plea deal on the robbery charge alone, as opposed to the plea deal offered for the murder charge alone, as the determinate sentence associated with the robbery charge was better for petitioner. Trial counsel was concerned that if petitioner were to go to trial on both charges, he would “likely be facing a felony murder charge due to the death of the victim herein.” By accepting the robbery plea deal, petitioner was removed from the jeopardy of receiving a life sentence without mercy. By order entered on July 2, 2019, the circuit court denied petitioner’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. Specifically, the circuit court found that petitioner’s claims were “utterly belied by the careful taking of the original plea” and that “[t]he evidence of record demonstrates that no error of a constitutional dimension occurred in the underlying proceeding in which [p]etitioner entered into a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent guilty plea represented by effective counsel.” It is from the circuit court’s July 2, 2019 order that petitioner now appeals. “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 asserts a single assignment of error arguing that the circuit court erred in finding that petitioner’s trial counsel was not ineffective. Our review of the record supports the circuit court's decision to deny petitioner's amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner's arguments herein were thoroughly addressed by the circuit court in its forty-page order denying petitioner habeas relief. That order includes detailed and well-reasoned findings and conclusions as to the assignment of error now raised by petitioner on appeal. Because we find no clear error or abuse of discretion in the circuit court’s order or the record before us, we hereby adopt and incorporate the circuit court’s findings and conclusions as they relate to petitioner’s assignment of error raised on appeal and direct the Clerk to attach a copy of the circuit court's July 2, 2019, “Final Order With Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” to this memorandum decision. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit court’s July 2, 2019, denial of petitioner’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. Affirmed. ISSUED: February 19, 2021 3 CONCURRED IN BY: Chief Justice Evan H. Jenkins Justice Elizabeth D. Walker Justice Tim Armstead Justice John A. Hutchison NOT PARTICIPATING: Justice William R. Wooton 4
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.
