1

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

Clifton M. Martin,

Petitioner Below, Petitioner

vs.) No. 20-0757 (Kanawha County 20-P-253)

Karen Pszczolkowski, Superintendent,

Northern Correctional Facility,

Respondent Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Self-represented petitioner Clifton M. Martin appeals the September 16, 2020, order of the 

Circuit Court of Kanawha County dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus without 

prejudice. Respondent Karen Pszczolkowski, Superintendent, Northern Correctional Facility, by 

counsel Katherine M. Smith, filed a summary response in support of the circuit court’s order.

The 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.

The appellate record in this case is sparse, consisting of only (1) the docket sheet from 

Kanawha County Case No. 20-P-253; (2) petitioner’s September 9, 2020, petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus; and (3) the circuit court’s September 16, 2020, dismissal order. In petitioner’s 

habeas petition, he provides the underlying criminal case number but omits several critical facts, 

including the offenses with which he was charged, the offenses to which he pled guilty, and the 

sentences he is serving.

In petitioner’s habeas petition, he alleged that trial counsel was ineffective by (1) failing to 

conduct an adequate investigation into the facts of his case; (2) failing to file a motion to have 

petitioner undergo a psychological evaluation; and (3) erroneously advising petitioner that 

FILED

August 27, 2021

EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA
2

voluntary intoxication and diminished capacity were not potential defenses in the underlying 

criminal case.

1 However, the petition contains no factual allegations about petitioner’s level of 

intoxication or mental condition at the time of his offenses.

2 Accordingly, by order entered on 

September 16, 2020, the circuit court found that petitioner’s habeas petition could be dismissed 

pursuant to Rule 4(c) of the Rules Governing Post-Conviction Habeas Corpus Proceedings in West 

Virginia (“Habeas Rule 4(c)”), which provides, in pertinent part: “If the petition contains a mere 

recitation of grounds without adequate factual support, the court may enter an order dismissing the 

petition, without prejudice, with directions that the petition be refiled containing adequate factual 

support. The court shall cause the petitioner to be notified of any summary dismissal.” 

Accordingly, the circuit court dismissed the habeas petition without prejudice and, in compliance 

with Habeas Rule 4(c), directed the circuit clerk to “serve a copy of this order upon . . . petitioner.” 

 

Petitioner now appeals the circuit court’s September 16, 2020, order dismissing his habeas 

petition. We review a circuit court order dismissing a habeas petition 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.” Syl. Pt. 1, Mathena v. Haines, 219 W.Va. 417, 

633 S.E.2d 771 (2006).

Syl. Pt. 1, Anstey v. Ballard, 237 W. Va. 411, 787 S.E.2d 864 (2016).

On appeal, petitioner argues that the instant case should be remanded to the circuit court 

with directions to make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Syllabus 

Point 1 of State ex rel. Watson v. Hill, 200 W. Va. 201, 488 S.E.2d 476 (1997), in which we held 

that “West Virginia Code section 53-4A-7(c) (1994) requires a circuit court denying or granting 

relief in a habeas corpus proceeding to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law 

relating to each contention advanced by the petitioner, and to state the grounds upon which the 

1

The other claim set forth in petitioner’s habeas petition is derivative of his first claim in 

that he alleged that ineffective assistance of counsel caused the circuit court to “lack[ ] jurisdiction 

to enter a valid judgment” against him.

2

A defendant’s level of intoxication impacts the availability of voluntary intoxication as a 

defense. See State v. Brant, 162 W. Va. 762, 766, 252 S.E.2d 901, 903 (1979) (finding that 

“[voluntary] intoxication will serve as a defense to a specific intent crime such as burglary, when it 

appears that the defendant was so incapacitated that he could not formulate the intent to commit a 

felony after breaking and entering”). Similarly, the diminished capacity defense allows a 

defendant to introduce “expert testimony regarding a mental disease or defect that rendered the 

defendant incapable, at the time the crime was committed, of forming a mental state that is an 

element of the crime charged,” but “does not preclude a conviction for a lesser included offense.” 

Syl. Pt. 3, State v. Joseph, 214 W. Va. 525, 590 S.E.2d 718 (2003). 
3

matter was determined.”3 In Watson, we found that our review of the circuit court order therein

was “hindered by the circuit court’s failure to articulate its reasons for [the] denial [of the habeas 

petition].” Id. at 203, 488 S.E.2d at 478. Here, respondent argues that the circuit court properly 

relied upon Habeas Rule 4(c) in dismissing the habeas petition without prejudice as petitioner’s 

claims lacked adequate factual support. Respondent further argues the circuit court complied with 

Habeas Rule 4(c)’s requirement—to notify petitioner that his petition could be refiled, provided 

that adequate factual support was set forth therein—by directing that a copy of its order be served 

on petitioner. We agree with respondent and find that, due to the circuit court’s compliance with 

Habeas Rule 4(c), its order sufficiently articulated its reasons for dismissing the habeas petition. 

 

Petitioner further argues that the circuit court should have appointed habeas counsel and

held a hearing on his claims. Respondent counters that the circuit court properly dismissed the 

habeas petition. We have held that

“‘[a] court having jurisdiction over habeas corpus proceedings may deny a 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus without a hearing and without appointing 

counsel if the petition, exhibits, affidavits or other documentary evidence filed 

therewith show to such court’s satisfaction that the petitioner is entitled to no 

relief.’ Syllabus Point 1, Perdue v. Coiner, 156 W.Va. 467, 194 S.E.2d 657 

(1973).” Syl. Pt. 2, White v. Haines, 215 W.Va. 698, 601 S.E.2d 18 (2004).

Anstey, 237 W. Va. at 412, 787 S.E.2d at 864, syl. pt. 3. Here, based upon our review of 

petitioner’s habeas petition, we concur with the circuit court’s finding that the petition could be 

dismissed, without prejudice, pursuant to Habeas Rule 4(c). See Losh v. McKenzie, 166 W. Va. 

762, 771, 277 S.E.2d 606, 612 (1981) (finding that the assertion of habeas claims “without detailed 

factual support does not justify the issuance of a writ, the appointment of counsel, and the holding 

of a hearing”). Therefore, we conclude that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in 

dismissing petitioner’s habeas petition.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit court’s September 16, 2020, order 

dismissing petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus without prejudice.

3

West Virginia Code § 53-4A-7(c) provides, in pertinent part:

When the court [in a post-conviction habeas corpus proceeding] determines to deny 

or grant relief . . ., the court shall enter an appropriate order . . . . In any order 

entered in accordance with the provisions of this section, the court shall make 

specific findings of fact and conclusions of law relating to each contention or 

contentions and grounds (in fact or law) advanced, shall clearly state the grounds 

upon which the matter was determined, and shall state whether a federal and/or 

state right was presented and decided.

Rule 9(c) of the Rules Governing Post-Conviction Habeas Corpus Proceedings in West Virginia 

imposes a similar requirement for findings of fact and conclusions of law. 
4

Affirmed.

ISSUED: August 27, 2021

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Justice Evan H. Jenkins

Justice Elizabeth D. Walker

Justice Tim Armstead

Justice John A. Hutchison

Justice William R. Wooton