Terrick Hogan v. Donnie Ames

Summary

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal without prejudice of Terrick Hogan’s second petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court held that the circuit court properly dismissed the petition under Habeas Rule 4(c) because it recited grounds without adequate factual support and that a hearing was unnecessary. The court further concluded that Hogan’s guilty plea waived most of his claims and that his remaining indictment challenge was inadequately supported.

Holdings

1. The circuit court's order sufficiently articulated its reasons for dismissing the second habeas petition because it found that the petition stated grounds for relief without adequate factual support and complied with Habeas Rule 4(c) by allowing refiling with adequate factual support.
2. A circuit court may dismiss a habeas petition without conducting a hearing when the petition and accompanying materials show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief.
3. Hogan's knowing and intelligent guilty plea waived all claims asserted in the second habeas petition except the claim that the indictment was defective.
4. Although a defective-indictment challenge is never waived, the indictment must be upheld when the defendant did not timely object unless it is so defective that no reasonable construction charges an offense under West Virginia law. Hogan waived the claim that the indictment failed to charge an offense and provided no adequate factual support for other alleged defects.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the circuit court sufficiently explained its dismissal of Hogan's second habeas petition under Habeas Rule 4(c).
2. Whether the circuit court was required to hold a hearing on the second habeas petition.
3. Whether Hogan's guilty plea waived the constitutional and statutory claims asserted in his second habeas petition, including ineffective assistance, involuntariness, confession, arrest, detention, and bail claims.
4. Whether Hogan preserved a challenge to the sufficiency of the indictment and whether the alleged indictment defects required habeas relief.

Disposition

affirmed