Brian D. Hayslett v. Donald Ames, Superintendent, Mt. Olive Correctional Complex

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the denial of Brian D. Hayslett’s petition for a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus. The court held that most of Hayslett’s claims were waived because they had been addressed or could have been raised on direct appeal, and it rejected his ineffective-assistance and cumulative-error claims. The decision is a per curiam memorandum decision issued under Rule 21 of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Holdings

1. A habeas petitioner is presumed to have intelligently and knowingly waived grounds that could have been advanced on direct appeal but were not, and Hayslett failed to rebut that presumption. His claims concerning voluntary-intoxication evidence, intoxication-related mental capacity, and the voluntary-intoxication and felony-murder instructions were therefore not cognizable in this habeas appeal because they were resolved or should have been raised on direct appeal.
2. Hayslett's challenge to the voluntariness of his confession was waived because he knew the circumstances of his confession and arrest and could have raised the issue on direct appeal. In addition, the alleged questioning concerning his mother's potential criminal culpability did not establish coercion on the record presented.
3. Hayslett failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel because the record did not show objectively deficient performance or a reasonable indication that the trial would have produced a different result absent counsel's alleged errors.
4. The cumulative-error doctrine did not provide a basis for habeas relief because the court found no individual error in Hayslett's criminal prosecution.

Questions Presented

1. Whether claims concerning the exclusion of expert and lay testimony about voluntary intoxication, Hayslett's alleged intoxication-related mental incompetence, and jury instructions were waived or had already been resolved on direct appeal.
2. Whether Hayslett's confession was involuntary and whether the confession claim was waived because it could have been raised on direct appeal.
3. Whether trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective.
4. Whether cumulative error required habeas relief.

Disposition

affirmed