John Keenan v. Karen Pszczolkowski, Superintendent, Northern Correctional Center

Keenan · Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia · August 31, 2022 · No. 21-0078

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the denial of John Keenan’s amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court held that Keenan failed to allege or establish that false serological evidence was presented at his trial, as required for a claim under Zain III. The court also declined to address his claim concerning exemplary prison behavior because such conduct is not a basis for habeas corpus relief.

Court
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
Writing for the Court
Chief Justice John A. Hutchison; Justice Elizabeth D. Walker; Justice William R. Wooton; Justice C. Haley Bunn; Justice Tim Armstead, disqualified
Jurisdiction
West Virginia
Decision date
August 31, 2022
Docket number
21-0078
Procedural posture
Petitioner appealed the Circuit Court of Kanawha County's dismissal of his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Standard of review
The final order and ultimate disposition in a habeas corpus action are reviewed for abuse of discretion, underlying factual findings for clear error, and questions of law de novo.
Precedential value
Memorandum decision; no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error found
Parties
John Keenan v. Karen Pszczolkowski, Superintendent, Northern Correctional Center
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

state post-conviction reliefhabeas corpusappellate procedureevidencestandard of review

Practice areas

post-conviction reliefcriminal procedurehabeas corpusappellate procedureevidence

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the circuit court was required to hold an evidentiary or omnibus hearing under In re Renewed Investigation of State Police Crime Laboratory, Serology Division, where the petitioner did not allege that the serologist offered false evidence.
  2. Whether the petitioner's exemplary behavior while incarcerated provided a basis for habeas corpus relief.

Holdings

  1. A habeas petitioner is not entitled to the full hearing contemplated by Zain III merely by invoking that decision; the petitioner must challenge the conviction based on serology evidence and allege that the serologist offered false evidence in the prosecution. Because Keenan made no such allegation, the circuit court did not err by denying relief without the requested hearing.
  2. A prisoner's exemplary behavior while incarcerated is not a basis for habeas corpus relief and is not cognizable in a habeas corpus proceeding.

Key quotations

Critically, however, petitioner ignores our additional direction that “a prisoner who challenges his or her conviction must prove that the serologist offered false evidence in his or her prosecution.” (at 2)
We will not address petitioner’s second assignment of error as a prisoner’s behavior is no basis for habeas corpus relief and is not cognizable in a habeas corpus proceeding. (at 3)

Factual background

Keenan was convicted after a 1984 jury trial for sexual assaults and abduction of a woman and was sentenced to an aggregate term of forty-three to ninety years. At trial, Corporal Sabrina Midkiff testified that seminal fluid was found on a washcloth at the crime scene. In his habeas petition, Keenan challenged the serological evidence but did not allege that the testifying serologist offered false evidence; he also acknowledged using a towel to wipe seminal fluid after sex with the victim and had admitted sexual acts with the victim in prior habeas proceedings.

Procedural history

Keenan was convicted by a jury in 1984 of four counts of first-degree sexual assault and one count of abduction with intent to defile involving a firearm, receiving consecutive indeterminate sentences totaling forty-three to ninety years. He filed numerous prior habeas petitions, including one that received an omnibus hearing and was denied. In the present 2019 habeas proceeding, appointed counsel reviewed the Losh list and filed an amended petition; the circuit court denied it on January 5, 2021, without holding an omnibus hearing. The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…