Ronald W. Holcomb v. Donnie Ames, Superintendent, Mt. Olive Correctional Complex

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the Mercer County Circuit Court’s denial of Ronald W. Holcomb’s second petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court held that Holcomb had been adequately advised of the Losh checklist, that his ineffective-assistance claims did not warrant an evidentiary hearing or appointment of counsel, and that the remaining claims were barred by res judicata, prior adjudication, or waiver. The court issued the decision as a memorandum decision under Rule 21.

Holdings

1. A prior omnibus habeas corpus hearing was res judicata as to matters raised and matters known or discoverable with reasonable diligence, subject only to recognized exceptions such as ineffective assistance at the omnibus hearing, newly discovered evidence, or a favorable retroactive change in law. Holcomb's claims did not qualify for an exception.
2. Holcomb was adequately advised of his obligation to raise all applicable habeas grounds during the omnibus proceeding.
3. The circuit court could deny Holcomb's ineffective-assistance-of-habeas-counsel claims without an evidentiary hearing or appointment of counsel because the record and documentary materials showed that he was entitled to no relief.
4. The circuit court's findings satisfied the requirement that a habeas court make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the petitioner's contentions.
5. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Holcomb's second petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Holcomb's second habeas petition was barred by res judicata, prior adjudication, or waiver under Losh v. McKenzie.
2. Whether Holcomb was adequately advised of his obligation to raise all applicable habeas grounds during the omnibus habeas proceeding.
3. Whether the circuit court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing and appoint counsel on Holcomb's ineffective-assistance-of-habeas-counsel claims.
4. Whether the circuit court made sufficiently specific findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the grounds raised in the second habeas petition.
5. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in denying the second habeas petition.

Disposition

affirmed