1 

### STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

State of West Virginia

, Plaintiff Below, Respondent

vs. ) No. 21

- 0 876 ( Harrison County 1 7

- F

- 33

- 2 )

Charles E. Lamp Jr.

, Defendant Below, Petitioner



### MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Charles E. Lamp Jr.

, by counsel Ryan C. Shreve , appeals the Circuit Court of

Harrison County’s September 22 , 2021

, order resentencing him for purposes of appeal

. Respondent State of West Virginia , by counsel Patrick Morrisey and Lara K. Bissett , filed a

response.

Petitioner was indicted in 2017 for one count of burglary, one count of grand larceny, and one count of petit larceny. Petitioner a nd the State entered into a plea agreement. In accordance

with the terms of that agreement, petitioner pled guilty to the burglary and grand larceny charges, the State dismissed the petit larceny charge, and the State filed a recidivist information allegin g that petitioner had been convicted of felony offenses on three prior occasions

. The parties agreed to leave sentencing to the circuit court’s discretion, but the plea agreement advised petitioner of the potential for a life recidivist sentence. See W. Va. Code § 61

- 11

- 18.

Following the filing of the recidivist information, p etitioner admitted to being the same person previously convicted of the identified felonies . T he circuit court sentenced him to life imprisonment, with parole eligibility after fifteen years, for his burglary conviction and to a concurrent term of not less than one nor more than ten years for his grand larceny conviction. By order entered September 22, 2021, petitioner was resentenced for the purposes of an appeal, and this appeal followed.

In this direct appeal, petitioner raises the claim that he was prejudiced by ineffective

assistance of counsel. 1 He argues , in short, that his counsel offered inadequate advice regarding the favorability of the plea agreement and the potential for a life recidivist sentence

.

This Court has previously stated that “[i]neffective assistance claims raised on direct appeal are presumptively subject to dismissal.” State v. Woodson , 222 W. Va. 607, 621, 671 S.E.2d 438,

1 Petitioner’s counsel on appeal is different from his counsel below. 

### FILED October 17, 2022

EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA2 452 (2008) (citation omitted). This is because the record is typi cally inadequate for review:

“ [I]ntelligent review is rendered impossible because the most significant witness, the trial attorney, has not been given the opportunity to explain the motive and reason behind his or her trial

behavior

. ” State v. Miller , 194 W. Va. 3, 14

- 15, 459 S.E.2d 14, 125

- 26 (1995). Such is the case here. Petitioner’s claims implicate the advice given by his counsel, but a record of that advice has

not been fully developed

. Accordingly, we decline to address the merits of petitioner’s ine ffective

assistance of counsel claims here

, and we remind litigants that the prudent course is to raise these

claims in a post

- conviction proceeding “to promote development of a factual record sufficient for

effective review.” Woodson , 222 W. Va. at 621, 6 71 S.E.2d at 452 (citation omitted).

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

Affirmed.

ISSUED: 

### October 17, 2022

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Justice John A. Hutchison

Justice Elizabeth D. Walker

Justice Tim Armstead

Justice William R. Wooton

Justice C. Haley Bunn