1

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

Antonio Collins, 

Petitioner Below, Petitioner

vs.) No. 19-1027 (Kanawha County 19-P-252)

Charles Williams, Superintendent, 

Huttonsville Correctional Center,

Respondent Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Self-represented petitioner Antonio Collins appeals the October 9, 2019, order of the 

Circuit Court of Kanawha County dismissing without prejudice his instant petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus. Respondent Charles Williams, Superintendent, Huttonsville Correctional Center, 

by counsel Andrea Nease Proper, filed a summary response in support of the circuit court’s order.

Petitioner filed a reply.

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.

In April of 2013, petitioner was involved in a confrontation in a 7-11 convenience store

where he shot and wounded two individuals. Petitioner states that his actions were “provoked.”

On October 28, 2013, pursuant to a plea agreement with the State, petitioner pled guilty to two 

counts of attempted murder and two counts of malicious wounding as set forth in the indictment 

filed in Case No. 13-F-304 and to a recidivist information filed in Case No. 13-F-441(I) charging 

him with being once before convicted of a felony pursuant to West Virginia Code § 61-11-18(a) 

FILED

February 2, 2021

EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA
2

(2000).

1 On December 12, 2013, following the entry of petitioner’s guilty pleas, the circuit court 

sentenced him to two to ten years of incarceration for each of his malicious wounding convictions 

and three to fifteen years of incarceration for one of his attempted murder convictions. For 

petitioner’s other attempted murder conviction, the circuit court enhanced petitioner’s sentence 

pursuant to West Virginia Code § 61-11-18(a) (2000) and imposed a term of six to fifteen years of 

incarceration. 2 The circuit court further ordered that petitioner would serve his sentences 

consecutively. Petitioner did not appeal the circuit court’s December 12, 2013, sentencing order.

On May 13, 2016, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court, 

alleging violation of double jeopardy principles, erroneous information in the presentence 

investigation report, failure to file a criminal appeal, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. By 

order entered on May 19, 2016, the circuit court denied the petition, finding that the allegations 

therein failed to provide “good cause” for a hearing.3

On November 7, 2018, petitioner filed a second habeas petition in the circuit court, alleging 

that his sentence was excessive and that trial counsel was ineffective. By order entered on April 

25, 2019, the circuit court denied the petition, once again finding that the allegations therein failed 

to provide “good cause” for a hearing. Petitioner appealed the circuit court’s April 25, 2019, order 

in Collins v. Searls, No. 19-0491, 2020 WL 5588609 (W. Va. September 18, 2020) (memorandum 

decision), and this Court affirmed the denial of the second petition. 

On June 28, 2019, petitioner filed the instant habeas petition alleging that numerous 

provisions of the United States and West Virginia Constitutions, such as the Due Process Clause 

and the Double Jeopardy Clause, were violated in the underlying criminal case. By order entered 

on October 9, 2019, the court dismissed the petition “without prejudice” given the lack of 

“adequate factual support” for petitioner’s claims.

1

The West Virginia Habitual Offender Act (“Act”), West Virginia Code §§ 61-11-18 and 

61-11-19, was amended, effective June 5, 2020. See 2020 W. Va. Acts ch. 88. The 2000 version 

of the Act applies to this case. At the time of the April of 2013 incident, petitioner had prior 

convictions for malicious wounding and robbery from 2001 and a firearms conviction from 2009.

Consequently, by accepting the plea agreement, petitioner avoided the application of West 

Virginia Code § 61-11-18(c) (2000), which provided for a life recidivist sentence for persons 

“twice before” convicted of a felony. 

2

Given that the sentence for attempted murder is an indeterminate term of three to fifteen 

years of incarceration, West Virginia Code § 61-11-18(a) (2000) provided that “the minimum term 

shall be twice the term of years otherwise provided for under such sentence.”

3

Petitioner filed an appeal from the circuit court’s May 19, 2016, order denying his first 

habeas petition on June 22, 2016. On February 2, 2017, petitioner filed a motion to withdraw that 

appeal. By order entered on March 6, 2017, this Court granted the motion and removed the appeal 

from its docket. 
3

Petitioner now appeals the circuit court’s October 9, 2019, order dismissing the instant

habeas petition. This Court reviews a circuit court order dismissing a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus 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). Furthermore,

“‘[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 for the petitioner 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).

Id. at 412, 787 S.E.2d at 864, syl. pt. 3.

On appeal, petitioner argues that the circuit court erred in dismissing the instant petition. 

Respondent counters that the dismissal of the petition was proper. We agree with respondent. In 

Losh v. McKenzie, 166 W. Va. 762, 771, 277 S.E.2d 606, 612 (1981), we found that “[a] mere 

recitation of any of our enumerated grounds without detailed factual support does not justify the 

issuance of a writ, the appointment of counsel, and the holding of a hearing.”4 Here, petitioner 

alleged that numerous provisions of the United States and West Virginia Constitutions, such as the 

Due Process Clause and the Double Jeopardy Clause, were violated in the underlying criminal 

case. Upon our review of the petition, we find that petitioner’s allegations are rambling and 

incoherent.5 Therefore, we conclude that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing 

the petition. 

4

In Losh v. McKenzie, 166 W. Va. 762, 277 S.E.2d 606 (1981), we compiled a nonexclusive 

list of frequently raised grounds for habeas relief. Id. at 768-70, 277 S.E.2d at 611-12. 

5

For example, petitioner argued that his right to due process of law was violated because 

he was “misadvised” as to the evidentiary value of the surveillance footage, from the 7-11 

convenience store where he shot and wounded two individuals. Petitioner made this argument

despite his admission that his attorney expressed concern that the footage “would have showcased 

petitioner’s guilt.” In another claim, petitioner seemingly argued that there was a violation of the 

Double Jeopardy Clause given “successive judgments” by the West Virginia Parole Board with 

regard to his lack of suitability to reenter into society. 
4

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit court’s October 9, 2019, order dismissing

without prejudice the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 

 

Affirmed.

ISSUED: February 2, 2021

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Justice Evan H. Jenkins

Justice Elizabeth D. Walker

Justice Tim Armstead

Justice John A. Hutchison

Justice William R. Wooton