STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
 

Stanley Demere, FILED 

Petitioner Below, Petitioner March 12, 2013 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

vs.) No. 12-0145 (Pendleton County 10-C-2) OF WEST VIRGINIA 

David Ballard, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Center 

Respondent Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner, Stanley Demere, by counsel Jessica M. Baker, appeals from the “Order 

Denying Petitioner’s Amended Second Petition for Post-Conviction Habeas Corpus Relief” 

entered by the Circuit Court of Pendleton County on October 12, 2010. Respondent, David 

Ballard, Warden of Mount Olive Correctional Complex, appears by counsel, Laura Young. 

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 convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life without mercy. 

Petitioner filed a direct appeal to this Court, which was refused. On June 7, 2007, petitioner filed 

his first petition for habeas corpus relief asserting eleven grounds for relief. The circuit court 

denied the petition for habeas corpus relief after an evidentiary hearing. On June 3, 2009, this 

Court refused petitioner’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying habeas corpus relief1

. Next, 

petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus relief in the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of West Virginia asserting nine grounds for relief, which was held in abeyance 

pending resolution of unexhausted federal claims at the State level. On March 18, 2010, and June 

28, 2010, Petitioner filed a pro se second petition for habeas corpus relief and an amended 

second petition for habeas corpus relief asserting four grounds for relief, including ineffective 

assistance of prior habeas corpus counsel for failing to raise federal constitutional rights. On 

October 12, 2010, the circuit court denied petitioner’s amended second petition for habeas 

corpus relief stating, “if a federal right was presented, then the [c]ourt did consider such federal 

issues in making its decision.” 

This Court reviews appeals of circuit court orders denying habeas corpus relief under the 

following standard: 

1 This Court refused petitioner’s habeas corpus appeal, No. 090677. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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). 

Petitioner argues prior habeas corpus counsel failed to raise federal constitutional rights 

as grounds for habeas corpus relief. Petitioner also argues that the circuit court failed to 

acknowledge and specifically find that petitioner’s federal rights were not violated by trial 

counsel in the first habeas corpus order. The respondent argues only ineffective assistance of 

prior habeas corpus counsel is proper in this case as other issues were fully adjudicated or 

waived. The respondent argues petitioner has failed to offer any evidence to support the 

conclusory statement that previous counsel failed to raise allegations of petitioner’s federal 

constitutional rights. The respondent argues the instant order clarifies that “the [c]ourt did 

consider such federal issues in making its decision.” This Court finds that the order shows that 

the circuit court considered federal issues in making its first habeas ruling. Therefore, we find no 

merit in this assignment of error because we find no error in the finding that prior habeas counsel 

was not ineffective 

For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the decision of the circuit court and the 

denial of petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is affirmed. 

Affirmed. 

ISSUED: March 12, 2013 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Justice Robin Jean Davis 

Justice Margaret L. Workman 

Justice Allen H. Loughry II 

DISSENTING: 

Chief Justice Brent D. Benjamin 

Justice Menis E. Ketchum