STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
 

Russell Coates, Jr., FILED Petitioner Below, Petitioner 

March 7, 2016 

vs) No. 15-0748 (Berkeley County 14-C-402) RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA Marvin C. Plumley, Warden, 

Huttonsville Correctional Center, 

Respondent Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Russell Coats Jr., by counsel Matthew T. Yanni, appeals the Circuit Court of 

Berkeley County’s July 9, 2015, order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Respondent 

Marvin Plumley, Warden, by counsel Christopher Quasebarth, filed a response. On appeal, 

petitioner alleges that the circuit court erred in dismissing thirteen grounds for relief on the basis 

that he knowingly waived those grounds by pleading no contest. 

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 circuit court’s order is appropriate under Rule 21 

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

In May of 2009, the Berkeley County grand jury indicted petitioner on one count of 

kidnapping, nine counts of second-degree sexual assault, and one count of delivery of cocaine. 

Thereafter, petitioner pled no contest to three counts of the lesser-included offense of first-degree 

sexual abuse. As part of the plea agreement, the State dismissed the remaining counts of the 

indictment. 

In February of 2011, the circuit court sentenced petitioner to three concurrent terms of 

incarceration of one to five years for each count of first-degree sexual abuse. The circuit court 

also sentenced petitioner to ten years of supervised release pursuant to West Virginia Code § 62­

12-26. Specifically, the circuit court found that petitioner “under[stood] the nature of the charges 

lodged against him, the nature and consequences of his plea[]” and “intelligently, knowingly, and 

voluntarily” entered into his plea agreement. Subsequently, petitioner filed a motion to withdraw 

his plea agreement arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. By order entered 

September 26, 2011, the circuit court denied petitioner’s motion. 

The following month, the Berkeley County Probation Office filed a petition to revoke 

petitioner’s supervised release on the basis that petitioner failed to report to probation on three 

1


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

separate occasions, failed to update his sexual offender registry information, and failed to 

provide proof of enrollment and/or attendance of sexual offender counseling. Thereafter, the 

circuit court revoked petitioner’s supervised release and sentenced petitioner to a term of 

incarceration of thirty days. Upon completion, the circuit court ordered petitioner to be reinstated 

to supervised release. 

In December of 2012, the Berkeley County Probation Office filed a second petition to 

revoke petitioner’s supervised release alleging that petitioner admitted that he was approximately 

six months in arrears on his GPS monitoring fees and had been charged with misdemeanor 

possession of a controlled substance. Further, the petition alleged that petitioner admitted to 

using cocaine, soliciting a prostitute, and being in possession of cocaine. The circuit court 

revoked petitioner’s supervised release, and sentenced him to a term of incarceration of ten years 

by order entered March 26, 2013. Thereafter, petitioner filed a direct appeal challenging the 

circuit court’s order revoking his supervised release which this Court affirmed. See State v. 

Coates, No 13-0436, 2014 WL 620507 (W.Va. Feb. 18, 2014)(memorandum decision). 

In June of 2014, petitioner filed a pro se petition in the circuit court seeking habeas relief. 

Thereafter, the circuit court appointed petitioner counsel. The following year, with the assistance 

of counsel, petitioner filed an amended petition seeking habeas relief alleging seventeen separate 

grounds for relief. By ordered entered July, 9, 2015, the circuit court summarily dismissed 

petitioner’s amended petition finding that all seventeen grounds for relief were “mere recitation 

of grounds without adequate factual support.” Alternatively, the circuit court also dismissed 

thirteen grounds for relief based upon petitioner’s plea agreement. It is from this order that 

petitioner appeals. 

On appeal, petitioner argues that the circuit court erred in dismissing thirteen grounds for 

relief because the circuit court failed to find that he knowingly and intelligently waived those 

grounds with the entry of his plea agreement. This Court has previously set forth the standard of 

review for an appeal of the denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus as follows: 

“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). Upon review 

of the limited record on appeal, we find no error in the circuit court’s order dismissing 

petitioner’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

This Court has held that “[a] criminal defendant can knowingly and intelligently waive 

his constitutional rights, and when such knowing and intelligent waiver is conclusively 

demonstrated on the record, the matter is Res judicata in subsequent actions in Habeas corpus.” 

Syl. Pt. 2, Call v. McKenzie, 159 W. Va. 191, 220 S.E.2d 665 (1975). This Court has also stated 

that “[a] knowing and voluntary guilty plea waives all antecedent, nonjurisdictional defects.” 

2


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State v. Proctor, 227 W.Va. 352, 364, 709 S.E.2d 549, 561 (2011), citing State v. Greener, 196 

W.Va. 500, 507 n. 1, 473 S.E.2d 921, 928 n. 1. (1996). In the present case, the limited record 

reveals that the circuit court specifically found that petitioner “[understood] the nature of the 

charges lodged against him [and] the nature and consequences of his pleas.” Further, the circuit 

court found that petitioner “tendered his pleas intelligently, knowingly, and voluntarily [on] his 

own free will and accord.” Importantly, the record on appeal is devoid of any evidence that 

petitioner was unaware of the consequences of his plea agreement. For these reasons, the record 

conclusively demonstrates that petitioner knowingly and intelligently waived certain 

constitutional rights when he entered his plea of no contest, and we find no error in the circuit 

court’s order denying petitioner habeas relief. 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. 

Affirmed. 

ISSUED: March 7, 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