STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
 

Ryan Nenigar, FILED 

Petitioner Below, Petitioner November 22, 2013 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

vs) No. 13-0385 (Hampshire County 06-C-07) OF WEST VIRGINIA 

David Ballard, Warden, 

Respondent Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Ryan Nenigar, by counsel Jonathan G. Brill, appeals the February 6, 2013, 

order of the Circuit Court of Hampshire County denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

Respondent State of West Virginia, by counsel Scott E. Johnson, filed a response in support of 

the circuit court’s order. 

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 is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. 

Petitioner was found guilty of first-degree murder by a jury on August 4, 2004. In the 

underlying crime, petitioner, Stephen Cooper and Scott Cooper were found to have picked up the 

victim in petitioner’s vehicle. The Coopers testified against petitioner, alleging that he was the 

mastermind in the crime and choked the victim to death. They also alleged that he had the idea to 

sink the victim’s body in a lake with concrete blocks, but when they tried to do so, they failed 

and dumped the blocks into the lake. They then took her body to a creek in Virginia and dumped 

it there. Stephen Cooper testified that when the body was dumped in the creek, he thought he 

heard the crack of the victim’s head hitting a rock. 

Petitioner appealed his conviction, but his appeal was denied in September of 2005. 

Petitioner then moved for a new trial, which was denied, and his appeal of the order denying the 

motion for a new trial was likewise denied. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

and counsel was appointed. Counsel filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, which 

the circuit court denied on February 6, 2013, after finding that a hearing was not necessary. 

Petitioner appeals from this denial. 

1
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This Court reviews appeals of circuit court orders 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). The 

following standard is applied to claims concerning ineffective assistance of counsel: 

In the West Virginia courts, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are to be 

governed by the two-pronged test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 

U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984): (1) Counsel's performance was 

deficient under an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) there is a 

reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of 

the proceedings would have been different. 

Syl. Pt. 5, State v. Miller, 194 W.Va. 3, 459 S.E.2d 114 (1995). 

On appeal, petitioner sets forth five assignments of error. First, petitioner argues that the 

lower court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of counsel at trial, as trial 

counsel acted in a deficient manner, preventing petitioner from receiving a fair trial Next, 

petitioner argues that the lower court erred in finding that the trial court properly admitted 

evidence of prior bad acts under Rule 404(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence. Petitioner 

also argues that the lower court erred in finding that the State presented sufficient evidence at 

trial to sustain convictions of first-degree murder and conspiracy. Further, petitioner argues that 

the lower court erred in finding that the State did not breach its duty in failing to preserve 

material evidence prior to trial and that the prosecuting attorney abandoned his quasi-judicial 

role, which prevented petitioner from receiving a fair trial. Finally, petitioner argues that the 

lower court erred in failing to declare a mistrial or poll the jury during the voir dire process based 

upon prejudicial statements made by a juror in the presence of other jury members. 

Upon our review of the record and the briefs on appeal, we find no error or abuse of 

discretion by the circuit court. All of the issues petitioner raises on appeal were issues addressed 

and discussed by the circuit court in its order denying petitioner post-conviction habeas corpus 

relief. The circuit court properly found that counsel was effective in his representation of 

petitioner, and that the prior bad acts, specifically the abandonment of petitioner’s vehicle and a 

prior incident wherein he choked his girlfriend, were properly admitted under Rule 404(b). 

Further, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for first-degree murder and 

conspiracy. 

2
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Petitioner contends that the State failed to preserve material evidence by not procuring 

and producing the cinder blocks at trial. As to this claim, the circuit court properly concluded 

that there was no evidence that the State was negligent in extracting the cinder blocks from the 

lake or that the State failed to properly preserve the evidence. The circuit court also found no 

prosecutorial misconduct when the prosecutor referred to defense counsel as a “jack in the box” 

based on repeated objections, noting that the comment petitioner relies upon was made outside of 

the presence of the jury. Finally, the circuit court found that voir dire was proper and that the 

statement that one juror knew petitioner “from a previous placement” did not prejudice him, as 

none of the jurors became biased against petitioner based on this isolated comment. Having 

reviewed the circuit court’s “Order Denying Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,” 

entered on February 6, 2013, we hereby adopt and incorporate the circuit court’s well-reasoned 

findings and conclusions as to the assignments of error raised in this appeal. The Clerk is 

directed to attach a copy of the circuit court’s opinion letter and order to this memorandum 

decision 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. 

Affirmed. 

ISSUED: November 22, 2013 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Chief Justice Brent D. Benjamin 

Justice Robin Jean Davis 

Justice Margaret L. Workman 

Justice Menis E. Ketchum 

Justice Allen H. Loughry II 

3