Darren Butler v. Marvin Plumley, Warden

Summary

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of Darren Butler’s petition for habeas corpus relief. The court rejected claims concerning ineffective assistance of counsel and the consequences of child neglect convictions, disproportionality of his sentences, and alleged unresolved competency issues. The court held that the registry and potential parental-rights consequences were adequately addressed, sentencing proportionality had been previously adjudicated, and the record did not support plain-error relief on competency allegations.

Holdings

1. Trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance because Butler was adequately advised of the child abuse and neglect registry and the possible termination of parental rights before the pleas were accepted.
2. The pleas were not involuntary merely because the written plea agreement did not mention the child abuse and neglect registry or possible termination of parental rights, because those consequences were expressly discussed on the record before the pleas were entered.
3. The circuit court properly treated Butler's claims concerning the severity and proportionality of his sentences as previously and finally adjudicated on direct appeal.
4. The record was insufficient to trigger the plain-error doctrine based on Butler's allegation that no follow-up competency evaluation was conducted.
5. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying the habeas petition without an evidentiary hearing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to advise Butler adequately about the child abuse and neglect registry and possible termination of parental rights.
2. Whether Butler's guilty and no-contest pleas were involuntary because the written plea agreement did not mention the child abuse and neglect registry or possible parental-rights consequences.
3. Whether Butler's sentence claims were barred because the proportionality and severity of his sentences had already been finally adjudicated on direct appeal.
4. Whether the absence of a competency evaluation constituted plain error warranting habeas relief.
5. Whether the circuit court properly denied habeas relief without an evidentiary hearing.

Disposition

affirmed