Summary
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the dismissal of Orville Green’s post-conviction habeas corpus petition. The court held that the asserted issues had been previously litigated, waived, or lacked merit, and that alleged ordinary trial error concerning a juror was not properly reviewable in a successive habeas proceeding.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether alleged ineffective assistance by prior habeas and appellate counsel permitted Green to relitigate issues raised or known during his prior habeas proceedings.
- Whether the circuit court abused its discretion or clearly erred in finding that Green's assignments of error had been previously adjudicated, waived, or lacked merit.
- Whether a claim concerning a juror's relationship to a deputy sheriff constituted ordinary trial error that could be reviewed in a subsequent habeas proceeding.
Holdings
- A prior omnibus habeas corpus hearing is res judicata as to all matters raised and all matters known or that could have been known with reasonable diligence, subject to exceptions for ineffective assistance at the omnibus habeas hearing, newly discovered evidence, or a retroactively applicable favorable change in law.
- In reviewing a circuit court order denying habeas corpus relief, the final order and ultimate disposition are reviewed for abuse of discretion, factual findings for clear error, and legal questions de novo.
- Ordinary trial error not involving a constitutional violation is not reviewable in a habeas corpus proceeding and cannot be raised as a proper claim in a second habeas proceeding.
Key quotations
“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.” (1)
“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.” (2)
“A habeas corpus proceeding is not a substitute for a writ of error in that ordinary trial error not involving constitutional violations will not be reviewed.” (2)
Factual background
Green was indicted in March 1997 and convicted by a jury on December 9, 1997, of multiple counts of sexual assault, incest, and sexual assault by a custodian or parent. His first criminal trial ended in a jury deadlock and mistrial before the conviction at issue. After an earlier state habeas proceeding and a federal habeas proceeding, Green filed a subsequent state habeas petition asserting ineffective assistance by prior counsel and numerous challenges to the indictment, trial, conviction, sentence, and jury.
Procedural history
Green was convicted by a jury in 1997 of multiple sexual offenses. He filed a first state habeas petition in 1999; following an omnibus hearing, the circuit court denied relief, and the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia refused his appeal in 2001. After a federal habeas petition was denied in 2009 for failure to exhaust state remedies on each contention, Green filed the present state habeas action. The circuit court consolidated it with the original habeas petition, held hearings, concluded that four grounds had been previously and finally adjudicated or waived and that the remaining assignments lacked merit, and dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed.