Jason M. Payne v. Russell Matson

Summary

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of Jason M. Payne’s habeas corpus petition. The court held that most of Payne’s newly discovered evidence claims had been previously adjudicated and that the remaining discovery-related claim could not entitle him to relief. The court also rejected his ineffective assistance of habeas counsel claim and concluded that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion.

Holdings

1. A dismissal under Habeas Rule 4(c) may be with prejudice when the claims have been previously and finally adjudicated or waived; the rule's without-prejudice option applies when the petition contains a mere recitation of grounds without adequate factual support.
2. The court may affirm a correct judgment on any legal ground disclosed by the record, and the alleged forged-check evidence did not entitle Payne to habeas relief, discovery, a new trial, or an evidentiary hearing.
3. Payne failed to establish ineffective assistance because he could not show a reasonable probability that counsel's alleged errors would have changed the result of the prior proceedings.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the circuit court's dismissal with prejudice under Habeas Rule 4(c) was improper because a Rule 4(c) dismissal should have been without prejudice.
2. Whether the alleged newly discovered evidence and requested handwriting analysis entitled Payne to habeas relief, discovery, a new trial, or an evidentiary hearing.
3. Whether alleged ineffective assistance by habeas counsel warranted relief.
4. Whether the circuit court clearly erred in finding that a purported July 2018 habeas petition had not been filed.

Disposition

affirmed