Pethel v. McBride, 219 W. Va. 578

638 S.E.2d 727 (2006) · Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia · July 18, 2006 · No. No. 32784

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed an order granting habeas corpus relief to Shawn Pethel. The court held that alleged violations of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act were not constitutional or jurisdictional errors cognizable in a West Virginia habeas proceeding, and that Pethel waived at least part of his IAD claims by pleading guilty. The court also addressed the availability of dismissal as a remedy for IAD violations.

Holdings

  1. A violation of the IAD is not cognizable in a post-conviction habeas corpus action brought under West Virginia Code section 53-4A-1 because the IAD creates statutory procedural rights, not constitutional or jurisdictional rights, and the alleged violation did not involve an illegal sentence or a cognizable collateral-attack ground.
  2. The IAD is not a jurisdictional statute, and a violation of its anti-shuttling provision does not deprive a West Virginia trial court of jurisdiction over criminal charges.
  3. A defendant's voluntary guilty plea waives all rights conferred by the IAD, including the right to dismissal based on an IAD violation, because the IAD is nonjurisdictional.
  4. The Court declined to decide whether a guilty plea to some charges waives IAD rights as to all charges in the same indictment; it held only that Pethel's guilty pleas waived his IAD claims concerning the drug and burglary charges to which he pleaded guilty.
  5. In a West Virginia IAD case, dismissal of an indictment may be with or without prejudice; the court deciding dismissal must consider the seriousness of the offense, the facts and circumstances causing the dismissal, and the effect of reprosecution on administration of the IAD and justice.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether an alleged violation of the IAD's anti-shuttling provision is cognizable in a West Virginia post-conviction habeas corpus proceeding.
  2. Whether a violation of the IAD deprives a West Virginia trial court of jurisdiction over the underlying criminal charges.
  3. Whether a voluntary guilty plea waives IAD rights, including the right to dismissal for an IAD violation.
  4. Whether dismissal for an IAD violation under West Virginia law may be with or without prejudice.
  5. Whether Alabama v. Bozeman required habeas relief in this post-conviction proceeding.

Disposition

reversed

Cases Cited (13)

  • Alabama v. Bozeman, 533 U.S. 146, 121 S. Ct. 2079, 150 L. Ed. 2d 188 (2001)(distinguished)
  • Reed v. Farley, 512 U.S. 339, 114 S. Ct. 2291, 129 L. Ed. 2d 277 (1994)(applied)
  • New York v. Hill, 528 U.S. 110, 120 S. Ct. 659, 145 L. Ed. 2d 560 (2000)(applied)
  • Carchman v. Nash, 473 U.S. 716, 105 S. Ct. 3401, 87 L. Ed. 2d 516 (1985)(applied)
  • State ex rel. Modie v. Hill, 191 W. Va. 100, 443 S.E.2d 257 (1994)(applied)
  • State v. Somerlot, 209 W. Va. 125, 544 S.E.2d 52 (2001)(applied)
  • State v. Greene, 196 W. Va. 500, 473 S.E.2d 921 (1996)(applied)
  • State v. Bennett, 179 W. Va. 464, 370 S.E.2d 120 (1988)(applied)
  • Moore v. Whyte, 164 W. Va. 718, 266 S.E.2d 137 (1980)(overruled)
  • State v. Wallace, 205 W. Va. 155, 517 S.E.2d 20 (1999)(applied)

Showing top 10 of 13.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from West Virginia Supreme Court Of Appeals