Case Title: Wilton Frederick Bland v. Karen Pszczolkowski, Warden (Memorandum Decision)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 15-0939

State: west-virginia

Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

Date: 2016-11-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED Wilton Frederick Bland, November 14, 2016 Petitioner Below, Petitioner RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS vs) No. 15-0939 (Mineral County 09-C-81 & Grant County 09-C-35) OF WEST VIRGINIA Karen Pszczolkowski, Warden, Northern Correctional Facility, Respondent Below, Respondent MEMORANDUM DECISION Petitioner Wilton F. Bland, by counsel Eric S. Black, appeals the Circuit Court of Mineral and Grant Counties’ September 1, 2015, order denying his petitions for writ of habeas corpus.1 Respondent Karen Pszczolkowski, Warden, by counsel David A. Stackpole, filed a response in support of the circuit court order.2 On appeal, petitioner argues that the circuit court erred in denying habeas relief because his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective and his plea was involuntary. This Court has considered the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the briefs, and the record presented, the Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the order of the circuit court is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. In May of 2007, the Mineral County grand jury indicted petitioner on seventy-one counts of possession of material depicting minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of West Virginia Code § 61-8C-3; four counts of use of obscene matter with intent to seduce a minor, in violation of West Virginia Code § 61-8A-4; two counts of distribution and display to a minor of obscene matter, in violation of West Virginia Code § 61-8A-2; and two counts of employment of a minor to produce obscene matter, in violation of West Virginia Code § 61-8A­ 1It is not readily apparent from the appendix record why the circuit court combined petitioner’s petitions for writ of habeas corpus and entered only one order. However, we note that the Twenty-First Judicial Circuit includes both Mineral and Grant Counties. 2Pursuant to Rule 41(c) of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure, we have replaced the original respondent, David Ballard, with Karen Pszczolkowski, Warden of the Northern Correctional Facility, because petitioner is currently incarcerated at the Northern Correctional Facility. 1 5. Two months later, the Grant County grand jury indicted petitioner on thirty counts each of first-degree sexual assault, in violation of West Virginia Code § 61-8B-3, and sexual abuse by a custodian, in violation of West Virginia Code § 61-8D-5. In 2008, petitioner entered into Alford plea agreements to resolve the pending charges in both Mineral and Grant Counties.3 In Grant County, petitioner pled guilty to one count of sexual assault in the first degree and ten counts of sexual abuse in the first degree with the sentences to run consecutively. The remaining counts were dismissed. Petitioner was sentenced to not less than fifteen nor more than thirty-five years of incarceration on the sexual assault conviction and one to five years each on the sexual abuse convictions. In Mineral County, petitioner pled guilty to two counts of distribution and display to a minor of obscene matter, two counts of use of obscene matter with intent to seduce a minor, and thirty counts of possession of material depicting minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct with the sentences to run consecutively. Petitioner was sentenced to one to five years of incarceration for each count of distribution, five years for use of obscene matter with intent to seduce a minor, and two years for each count of possession of material depicting minors. The circuit court ordered that petitioner’s Mineral County sentences shall run concurrent to his Grant County sentences. Thereafter, petitioner, pro se filed, petitions for writs of habeas corpus and multiple supplements in Mineral and Grant Counties. Thereafter, the Circuit Court of Mineral County appointed petitioner counsel, who filed two amended petitions for writs of habeas corpus. The circuit court held an omnibus evidentiary hearing on August 4, 2015. At the hearing, the circuit court addressed all the grounds petitioner raised, which included ineffective assistance of counsel and an involuntary guilty plea. After a thorough review of petitioner’s claims, the circuit court denied both petitions by order entered on September 1, 2015. This appeal follows. This Court reviews a circuit court order denying habeas corpus relief under the following standard: “In reviewing challenges to the findings and conclusions of the circuit court in a habeas corpus action, we apply a three-prong standard of review. We review the final order and the ultimate disposition under an abuse of discretion standard; the underlying factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard; and questions of law are subject to a de novo review.” Syllabus point 1, Mathena v. Haines, 219 W.Va. 417, 633 S.E.2d 771 (2006). Syl. Pt. 1, State ex rel. Franklin v. McBride, 226 W.Va. 375, 701 S.E.2d 97 (2009). 3An Alford plea, from the decision in North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), allows a defendant to enter a guilty plea without admitting guilt. See Syl. Pt. 1, Kennedy v. Frazier, 178 W.Va. 10, 357 S.E.2d 43 (1987) (stating that “[a]n accused may voluntarily, knowingly and understandingly consent to the imposition of a prison sentence even though he is unwilling to admit participation in the crime, if he intelligently concludes that his interests require a guilty plea and the record supports the conclusion that a jury could convict him.”). 2 On appeal to this Court, petitioner alleges that he was entitled to habeas relief because his trial counsel was ineffective and his plea agreements were not entered into voluntarily. The Court, however, does not agree. Our review of the record supports the circuit court’s decision to deny petitioner post- conviction habeas corpus relief based on errors alleged in this appeal, which were also argued below. Indeed, the circuit court’s fifty-five page order includes well-reasoned findings and conclusions as to the assignments of error raised on appeal. Given our conclusion that the circuit court’s order and the record before us reflect no clear error or abuse of discretion, we hereby adopt and incorporate the circuit court’s findings and conclusions as they relate to petitioner’s assignments of error raised herein and direct the Clerk to attach a copy of the circuit court’s September 1, 2015, “Order Denying Petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus” to this memorandum decision. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. Affirmed. ISSUED: November 14, 2016 CONCURRED IN BY: Chief Justice Menis E. Ketchum Justice Robin Jean Davis Justice Brent D. Benjamin Justice Margaret L. Workman Justice Allen H. Loughry II 3