omnibus habeas corpus hearing in West Virginia

2021On appeal, petitioner no longer claims that felony charges allegedly filed against habeas counsel impacted habeas counsel’s performance in the second habeas proceeding. 4 with reasonable diligence could have been known; however, an applicant may still petition the court on the following grounds: ineffective assistance of counsel at the omnibus habeas corpus hearing[.]” The test evaluating an ineffective assistance claim is as follows: “In the West Virginia courts, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are to be governed by the two-pronged test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466

2021On appeal, petitioner no longer claims that felony charges allegedly filed against habeas counsel impacted habeas counsel’s performance in the second habeas proceeding. 4 with reasonable diligence could have been known; however, an applicant may still petition the court on the following grounds: ineffective assistance of counsel at the omnibus habeas corpus hearing[.]” The test evaluating an ineffective assistance claim is as follows: “In the West Virginia courts, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are to be governed by the two-pronged test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466

2021On appeal, petitioner no longer claims that felony charges allegedly filed against habeas counsel impacted habeas counsel’s performance in the second habeas proceeding. 4 with reasonable diligence could have been known; however, an applicant may still petition the court on the following grounds: ineffective assistance of counsel at the omnibus habeas corpus hearing[.]” The test evaluating an ineffective assistance claim is as follows: “In the West Virginia courts, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are to be governed by the two-pronged test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466

2021On appeal, petitioner no longer claims that felony charges allegedly filed against habeas counsel impacted habeas counsel’s performance in the second habeas proceeding. 4 with reasonable diligence could have been known; however, an applicant may still petition the court on the following grounds: ineffective assistance of counsel at the omnibus habeas corpus hearing[.]” The test evaluating an ineffective assistance claim is as follows: “In the West Virginia courts, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are to be governed by the two-pronged test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466

2021White, 215 W.

2020Pt. 1, White v. Haines, 215 W.Va. 698 , 601 S.E.2d 18 (2004) (quoting Syl.

2020Affirmed. grounds: ineffective assistance of counsel at the omnibus habeas corpus hearing; newly[-]discovered evidence; or, a change in the law, favorable to the applicant, which may be applied retroactively. (emphasis added.) 8 In Anstey, this Court held that “‘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

2019Pt. 1, Mathena v. Haines, 219 W.Va. 417 , 633 S.E.2d 771 (2006). **** 5 In syllabus point two of Losh, we held: A judgment denying relief in post-conviction habeas corpus is res judicata on questions of fact or law which have been fully and finally litigated and decided, and as to issues which with reasonable diligence should have been known but were not raised, and this occurs where there has been an omnibus habeas corpus hearing at which the applicant for habeas corpus was represented by counsel or appeared pro se having knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. 166 W.Va. at 7

2019Pt. 1, Mathena v. Haines, 219 W.Va. 417 , 633 S.E.2d 771 (2006). **** 5 In syllabus point two of Losh, we held: A judgment denying relief in post-conviction habeas corpus is res judicata on questions of fact or law which have been fully and finally litigated and decided, and as to issues which with reasonable diligence should have been known but were not raised, and this occurs where there has been an omnibus habeas corpus hearing at which the applicant for habeas corpus was represented by counsel or appeared pro se having knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. 166 W.Va. at 7

2019Pt. 1, Mathena v. Haines, 219 W.Va. 417 , 633 S.E.2d 771 (2006). **** 5 In syllabus point two of Losh, we held: A judgment denying relief in post-conviction habeas corpus is res judicata on questions of fact or law which have been fully and finally litigated and decided, and as to issues which with reasonable diligence should have been known but were not raised, and this occurs where there has been an omnibus habeas corpus hearing at which the applicant for habeas corpus was represented by counsel or appeared pro se having knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. 166 W.Va. at 7

2018Second, 1 Unlawful wounding is a felony pursuant to West Virginia Code § 61-2-9(a). 2 The applicable provision of the Armed Career Criminal Act is set forth at 18 United States Code § 924 (e)(1). 3 Two years following the circuit court’s decision, we held in syllabus point 3 of Cline v. Mirandy, 234 W.Va. 427 , 765 S.E.2d 583 (2014), that jurisdiction does not exist to hear a habeas petition once an inmate is released on parole. 4 We take judicial notice of the record in Shrader. 3 we found the core contention of both of petitioner’s claims—that the indictments did not validly charge him with

2018Second, 1 Unlawful wounding is a felony pursuant to West Virginia Code § 61-2-9(a). 2 The applicable provision of the Armed Career Criminal Act is set forth at 18 United States Code § 924 (e)(1). 3 Two years following the circuit court’s decision, we held in syllabus point 3 of Cline v. Mirandy, 234 W.Va. 427 , 765 S.E.2d 583 (2014), that jurisdiction does not exist to hear a habeas petition once an inmate is released on parole. 4 We take judicial notice of the record in Shrader. 3 we found the core contention of both of petitioner’s claims—that the indictments did not validly charge him with

2013Franklin v. McBride, 226 W.Va. 375 , 701 S.E.2d 97 (2009).With regard to subsequent petitions for writs of habeas corpus, we have held as follows: A prior omnibus habeas corpus hearing is res judicata as to all matters raised and as to all matters known or which with reasonable diligence could have been known; however, an applicant may still petition the court on the following grounds: ineffective assistance of counsel at the omnibus habeas corpus hearing; newly discovered evidence; or, a change in the law, favorable to the applicant, which may be applied retroactively.

2013Franklin v. McBride, 226 W.Va. 375 , 701 S.E.2d 97 (2009).With regard to subsequent petitions for writs of habeas corpus, we have held as follows: A prior omnibus habeas corpus hearing is res judicata as to all matters raised and as to all matters known or which with reasonable diligence could have been known; however, an applicant may still petition the court on the following grounds: ineffective assistance of counsel at the omnibus habeas corpus hearing; newly discovered evidence; or, a change in the law, favorable to the applicant, which may be applied retroactively.

2024Va. 681 , 319 S.E.2d 806 (1984). 8 presumption that Mr. Miller’s claims are barred by res judicata consistent with this Court’s holding in Losh: A judgment denying relief in post-conviction habeas corpus is res judicata on questions of fact or law which have been fully and finally litigated and decided, and as to issues which with reasonable diligence should have been known but were not raised, and this occurs where there has been an omnibus habeas corpus hearing at which the applicant for habeas corpus was represented by counsel or appeared pro se having knowingly and intelligently waived his

2024Pt. 2, Losh. 17 Id. at Syl.

2024Va. 762 , 277 S.E.2d 606 (1981). 5. “‘A new trial will not be granted on the ground of newly-discovered evidence unless the case comes within the following rules: (1) The evidence must appear to have been discovered since the trial, and, from the affidavit of the new witness, what such evidence will be, or its absence satisfactorily explained. (2) It must appear from facts stated in his affidavit that plaintiff was diligent in ascertaining and securing his evidence, and that the new evidence is such that due diligence would not have secured it before the verdict. (3) Such evidence must be new

2020Id. 3 grounds: ineffective assistance of counsel at the omnibus habeas corpus hearing; newly discovered evidence; or, a change in the law, favorable to the applicant, which may be applied retroactively.

2019Though petitioner questions the adequacy of his habeas attorney’s arguments on appeal, we agree with the circuit court’s finding that, given the entry of a comprehensive order in the prior proceeding that “thoroughly addressed all of [p]etitioner’s claims consistent with the record, evidence presented, and relevant law, . . . regardless of what appellate may still petition the court on the following grounds: ineffective assistance of counsel at the omnibus habeas corpus hearing[.] Id. at 762-63 , 277 S.E.2d at 608 . 7 In his reply brief, petitioner argues that, because he alleges that his habe

2017Supreme Court, June 26, 2015) (memorandum decision) (“Gray II”), this Court affirmed the circuit court’s denial of relief finding that the court did not err in declining to hold an omnibus habeas corpus hearing.2 This Court found that Attorney Scheetz’s statement that petitioner intentionally created a conflict with his trial attorneys and attempted to create another conflict with his habeas attorney was consistent with the Court’s finding in Gray I that petitioner’s erratic behavior included “‘giving counsel inconsistent directives’” and “‘making [unproven] allegations against them.’” Id. (qu

2017Supreme Court, June 26, 2015) (memorandum decision) (“Gray II”), this Court affirmed the circuit court’s denial of relief finding that the court did not err in declining to hold an omnibus habeas corpus hearing.2 This Court found that Attorney Scheetz’s statement that petitioner intentionally created a conflict with his trial attorneys and attempted to create another conflict with his habeas attorney was consistent with the Court’s finding in Gray I that petitioner’s erratic behavior included “‘giving counsel inconsistent directives’” and “‘making [unproven] allegations against them.’” Id. (qu

2017However, the Court finds that neither petitioner’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, nor his memorandum in support of the amended petition addressed this alleged errors. “‘Our general rule is that nonjurisdictional questions . . . raised for the first time on appeal, will not be considered.’ Shaffer v. Acme Limestone Co., Inc., 206 W.Va. 333 , 349 n. 20, 524 S.E.2d 688 , 704 n. 20 (1999).” Noble v. W.Va.

2017However, the Court finds that neither petitioner’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, nor his memorandum in support of the amended petition addressed this alleged errors. “‘Our general rule is that nonjurisdictional questions . . . raised for the first time on appeal, will not be considered.’ Shaffer v. Acme Limestone Co., Inc., 206 W.Va. 333 , 349 n. 20, 524 S.E.2d 688 , 704 n. 20 (1999).” Noble v. W.Va.

2017Supreme Court, June 26, 2015) (memorandum decision) (“Gray II”), this Court affirmed the circuit court’s denial of relief finding that the court did not err in declining to hold an omnibus habeas corpus hearing.2 This Court found that Attorney Scheetz’s statement that petitioner intentionally created a conflict with his trial attorneys and attempted to create another conflict with his habeas attorney was consistent with the Court’s finding in Gray I that petitioner’s erratic behavior included “‘giving counsel inconsistent directives’” and “‘making [unproven] allegations against them.’” Id. (qu

2013This Court notes the standard for reviewing a claim of newly discovered evidence is set forth in State v. Frazier, 162 W.Va. 935 , 253 S.E.2d 534 (1979).5 The Court finds that petitioner’s 4 In Syllabus Point Four of Losh v. McKenzie, 166 W.Va. 762 , 277 S.E.2d 606 (1981), this Court held as follows: A prior omnibus habeas corpus hearing is res judicata as to all matters raised and as to all matters known or which with reasonable diligence could have been known; however, an applicant may still petition the court on the following grounds: ineffective assistance of counsel at the omnibus habeas

2013This Court notes the standard for reviewing a claim of newly discovered evidence is set forth in State v. Frazier, 162 W.Va. 935 , 253 S.E.2d 534 (1979).5 The Court finds that petitioner’s 4 In Syllabus Point Four of Losh v. McKenzie, 166 W.Va. 762 , 277 S.E.2d 606 (1981), this Court held as follows: A prior omnibus habeas corpus hearing is res judicata as to all matters raised and as to all matters known or which with reasonable diligence could have been known; however, an applicant may still petition the court on the following grounds: ineffective assistance of counsel at the omnibus habeas

2006In State v. Myers, 167 W.Va. 663 , 280 S.E.2d 299 (1981), this Court held that the Circuit Court of Cabell County did not commit error in refusing to require a mental examination where the accused initially refused to cooperate with the examining physician and there was nothing presented to the Circuit Court to suggest that the accused was mentally incompetent. 13 .

2006In State v. Myers, 167 W.Va. 663 , 280 S.E.2d 299 (1981), this Court held that the Circuit Court of Cabell County did not commit error in refusing to require a mental examination where the accused initially refused to cooperate with the examining physician and there was nothing presented to the Circuit Court to suggest that the accused was mentally incompetent. 13 .