1

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

State of West Virginia,

Plaintiff Below, Respondent 

vs.) No. 19-0259 (Raleigh County 19-PCS-145-D)

Jamal A. Azeez,

Defendant Below, Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Jamal A. Azeez, a self-represented litigant, appeals the February 22, 2019, order 

of the Circuit Court of Raleigh County refusing his petition for an order for relief from registration

as a sexual offender. Respondent, State of West Virginia, by counsel Holly M. Flannigan, filed a 

response in support of the circuit court’s order. On appeal, petitioner argues that circuit court erred 

in dismissing his petition on the basis that he failed to comply with the filing requirements set forth 

in an August 24, 2014, order.1

1

On appeal, petitioner alleges seven assignments of error; however, only two attempt to 

address the order on appeal and these have been combined herein. The remaining five assignments 

of error are not proper for consideration. Petitioner’s remaining assignments of error are that he 

demonstrated actual innocence, which should allow reconsideration of his case despite procedural 

bars; that he discovered several pieces of exculpatory evidence, which is sufficient to justify relief 

in all of his subsequent petitions; that the circuit court ignored his claims of racial discrimination 

during jury selection; that the circuit court failed to address whether trial court failed to consider 

if a jury member was struck due to race, encouraged the suppression of evidence, erred in denying 

a witness’s testimony, and ignored testimony; and that the circuit court ignored the effects of 

registration on a sexual offender registry based on petitioner’s unlawful conviction. Petitioner’s

remaining assignments of error fail to address the order on appeal, and petitioner’s citations to

authority and the record that are not applicable to the order on appeal. We therefore decline to

address these issues. Pursuant to Rule 10(c)(7) of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure, 

[t]he brief must contain an argument exhibiting clearly the points of fact and law 

presented, the standard of review applicable, and citing the authorities relied on, 

under headings that correspond with the assignments of error. The argument must 

contain appropriate and specific citations to the record on appeal, including 

citations that pinpoint when and how the issues in the assignments of error were 

FILED

June 25, 2020

EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA
2

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.

Following a jury trial in July of 1987, petitioner was convicted of second-degree sexual 

assault. This conviction stemmed from an incident in which petitioner sexually assaulted a patient 

at a hospital where he was employed. Thereafter, the circuit court sentenced petitioner to a term of 

incarceration of ten to twenty years. In June of 1988, petitioner filed a direct appeal with this Court, 

which was refused. Petitioner renewed his petition for appeal on July 26, 1988, and this Court 

again refused to hear the appeal. 

In June of 1992, petitioner, by counsel, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Following 

an omnibus hearing, the circuit court denied petitioner habeas relief. Petitioner appealed that denial 

to this Court. In January of 1995, this Court heard oral arguments on petitioner’s appeal of the 

circuit court’s order denying habeas relief. By order entered July 13, 1995, this Court affirmed the 

circuit court’s order. See State ex rel. Azeez v. Mangum, 195 W. Va. 163, 465 S.E.2d 163 (1995). 

Two years later, petitioner filed a second petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court, 

which was summarily denied based upon res judicata.

In August of 2013, petitioner filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis. Following an 

evidentiary hearing in April of 2014, the circuit court denied petitioner relief based upon res

judicata and collateral estoppel because petitioner’s grounds for relief were previously litigated in 

the Circuit Court of Raleigh County, this Court, and the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of West Virginia. In its August 25, 2014, order, the circuit court found that 

[t]his Petitioner has inundated the Circuit Court of Raleigh County with actions for 

twenty-seven years and has failed to prevail in any. The Petitioner has always pled 

pauper status and has further filed these actions without any accountability with 

regard to good faith pleadings. It is the ORDER of this Court that no further 

pleadings from this Petitioner shall be accepted by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of 

Raleigh County unless and until the Petitioner has provided a full and complete 

presented to the lower tribunal. The Court may disregard errors that are not 

adequately supported by specific references to the record on appeal.

Additionally, in an Administrative Order entered December 10, 2012, Re: Filings That Do

Not Comply With the Rules of Appellate Procedure, this Court specifically noted that “[b]riefs that 

lack citation of authority [or] fail to structure an argument applying applicable law” are not in 

compliance with this Court’s rules. Further, “[b]riefs with arguments that do not contain a citation 

to legal authority to support the argument presented and do not ‘contain appropriate and specific 

citations to the record on appeal . . . ’ as required by rule 10(c)(7)” are not in compliance with this 

Court’s rules. Id.
3

financial statement for review by an appropriate judicial officer to determine his 

pauper status and further the Clerk shall refuse to accept any pleadings, petitions, 

motions or actions unless and until the proposed pleadings, petitions, motions or 

actions are countersigned by an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of 

West Virginia verifying that there is a good faith basis for the pleading sought to 

be filed by this Petitioner.

See State v. Azeez, No. 14-0951, 2015 WL 5125803 (W. Va. Aug. 31, 2015)(memorandum 

decision). This Court affirmed the August 25, 2014, denial of a petition for a writ of error coram 

nobis and adopted the circuit court’s order. 

On February 20, 2019, petitioner filed a motion seeking relief from his obligation to 

register as a sexual offender. The motion was denied by the circuit court on February 22, 2019, 

because petitioner failed to comply with the filing requirements set forth in the August 25, 2014, 

circuit court order. That is, he failed to provide a full and complete financial statement and failed 

to have an attorney verify that there was a good faith basis for his pleading. Petitioner now appeals 

the February 22, 2019, circuit court decision. 

“This Court reviews the circuit court’s final order and ultimate disposition under an abuse 

of discretion standard. We review challenges to findings of fact under a clearly erroneous standard; 

conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.” Syl. Pt. 1, Haines v. Kimble, 221 W. Va. 266, 654 

S.E.2d 588 (2007) (quoting Syl. Pt. 4, Burgess v. Porterfield, 196 W. Va. 178, 469 S.E.2d 114 

(1996)).

On appeal, petitioner argues that the circuit court erred in dismissing his 2019 petition on 

the basis that he failed to comply with the requirements set forth in the August 24, 2014, order. 

Petitioner contends that, instead, the circuit court should have addressed the issues presented and 

erred in failing to list “at least one requirement that could be considered legally acceptable.” 

Petitioner further argues that it is unclear what requirements were imposed upon him. He also 

argues that the circuit court erred in dismissing his legitimate petition for a writ of error coram 

nobis.

Our cases have made clear that “[a]lthough we liberally construe briefs in determining 

issues presented for review, issues which are . . . mentioned only in passing but are not supported 

with pertinent authority, are not considered on appeal.” State v. LaRock, 196 W. Va. 294, 302, 470 

S.E.2d 613, 621 (1996). We have explained that 

[a]n appellant must carry the burden of showing error in the judgment of which he 

complains. This Court will not reverse the judgment of a trial court unless error 

affirmatively appears from the record. Error will not be presumed, all presumptions 

being in favor of the correctness of the judgment.

Syl. Pt. 4, State v. Myers, 229 W. Va. 238, 728 S.E.2d 122 (2012) (internal quotations and citations 

omitted).
4

In his brief, petitioner cites to no legal authority and fails to reference anything in the 

appendix that addresses the issues on appeal. Further, petitioner’s argument fails to actually 

address the issues on appeal. Instead, petitioner uses the assignments of error as a launching pad 

to attempt to relitigate issues that were decided long ago. Because petitioner fails to adequately 

address the issues on appeal, we decline to address his issues on appeal. W. Va. R. App. P. 10(c)(7) 

(“The Court may disregard errors that are not adequately supported by specific references to the 

record on appeal.”); State, Dep’t of Health and Human Res. ex rel. Robert Michael B. v. Robert 

Morris N., 195 W. Va. 759, 765, 466 S.E.2d 827, 833 (1995) (“[A] skeletal ‘argument,’ really 

nothing more than an assertion, does not preserve a claim. . . . Judges are not like pigs, hunting for 

truffles buried in briefs.”). 

Even if we had addressed the issue on the merits, petitioner’s argument still falls short. In 

the August 25, 2014, circuit court order dismissing petitioner’s petition for a writ of error coram 

nobis, the circuit court noted that petitioner had filed thirty-eight petitions in the twenty-seven 

years since petitioner’s underlying criminal conviction. The circuit court noted that petitioner had 

argued the same issues time and time again and that petitioner had filed these petitions at the 

taxpayers’ expense with no regard for good faith pleadings. Therefore, the circuit court-imposed

restrictions upon petitioner’s future filings. Petitioner did not challenge these restrictions in the 

circuit court or in his appeal to this Court. Further, we adopted and incorporated the August 25, 

2014, circuit court order in petitioner’s 2014 appeal. See State v. Azeez, No. 14-0951, 2015 WL 

5125803 (W. Va. Aug. 31, 2015)(memorandum decision). In the order at issue in the instant

appeal, the circuit court determined that petitioner failed to abide by the filing regulations, which 

remained in effect, and, upon our review, we agree with the circuit court’s conclusion and, 

therefore, find no error

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit court’s February 22, 2019, order refusing 

the petition for relief from registration for sexual offenders. 2

Affirmed.

ISSUED: June 25, 2020

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Justice Tim Armstead

Justice Margaret L. Workman 

Justice Elizabeth D. Walker

Justice Evan H. Jenkins

DISQUALIFIED:

Justice John A. Hutchison

2 Petitioner’s April 1, 2020, motion for an expedited decision is rendered moot by this 

memorandum decision.