STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
 

Alvin Chambers, 

Petitioner Below, Petitioner FILED 

April 28, 2014 

vs) No. 14-0020 (Webster County 13-P-26) RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

David Ballard, Warden, Mt. Olive Correctional Complex, 

Respondent Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Alvin Chambers, appearing pro se, appeals the December 11, 2013, order of the 

Circuit Court of Webster County that denied his third petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 

Respondent Warden, by counsel Christopher S. Dodrill, filed a summary response. 

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 2005, petitioner was sentenced on two counts of third degree sexual assault and two 

counts of sexual abuse by a parent, guardian, or custodian. The two sexual assault counts were to 

run concurrently and the two sexual abuse counts were to run concurrently, but the sexual assault 

counts and the sexual abuse counts were to run consecutively. Petitioner was therefore sentenced 

to twenty to forty years imprisonment. Petitioner filed a direct appeal to this Court, which was 

refused. 

Petitioner filed his first petition for a writ of habeas corpus on August 18, 2006, and was 

subsequently appointed habeas counsel. Counsel filed an amended petition on December 26, 2006, 

alleging eighteen grounds of relief. The circuit court provided petitioner an omnibus hearing on 

May 27, 2007. On December 12, 2007, the circuit court denied the petition after addressing all 

eighteen grounds including ineffective assistance of trial counsel. 

Petitioner filed his second habeas petition on September 23, 2010, with regard to an nunc 

pro tunc order the circuit court entered on April 28, 2009, to correct an error in its December 12, 

2007, order denying petitioner’s first petition. Because the error related to whether petitioner’s 

sentences continued to run consecutively, petitioner argued the nunc pro tunc order violated 

double jeopardy principles. Petitioner was again appointed habeas counsel and provided a hearing 

on February 9, 2011. On February 23, 2011, the circuit court denied the second petition. Petitioner 

appealed to this Court, and we affirmed the circuit court’s February 23, 2011, order. See Chambers 

1
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

v. Ballard, No. 11-1082, 2012 WL 2988791 (W.Va. Supreme Court, March 12, 2012) 

(memorandum decision). 

Petitioner filed his third habeas petition on October 16, 2013, asserting that counsel in each 

of his prior habeas proceedings failed to conduct a reasonable investigation into his claims. 

However, petitioner’s allegations focused on his trial counsel’s performance: (1) that trial counsel 

failed to protect his right to be free of unlawful searches and seizures; (2) that trial counsel failed to 

hold the State to its burden of proof; and (3) that trial counsel failed to have the charges dismissed 

with prejudice. On December 11, 2013, the circuit court denied the petition, stating as follows: 

This marks the third petition the Court has received from the Petitioner 

regarding the request for post-conviction habeas corpus relief in the underlying 

case 05-F-12. However, as previously stated, this Court finds this Petition merely 

re-alleges the grounds for relief that were previously and finally adjudicated under 

the guise of ineffective assistance of counsel. To the extent the Petition asserts any 

allegations not previously raised in prior habeas corpus proceedings, the Court 

finds the Petitioner has waived the right to assert those grounds, as they were not 

previously brought before the Court. Thus, pursuant to West Virginia Code § 

53-4A-1(c)[,] Petitioner has already exhausted his request for relief. Accordingly, 

the relief requested by Petitioner in this instant petition is hereby denied. 

Petitioner now appeals the circuit court’s December 11, 2013, denial of his third petition. 

We apply the following standard of review in habeas cases: 

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, 418, 633 S.E.2d 771, 772 (2006). 

On appeal, petitioner asserts that the circuit court erred in finding the claims in his third 

petition were previously and finally adjudicated. This Court has held that the doctrine of res 

judicata bars subsequent habeas petitions: 

A judgment denying relief in post-conviction habeas corpus is res judicata on 

questions of fact or law which have been fully and finally litigated and decided, and 

as to issues which with reasonable diligence should have been known but were not 

raised, and this occurs where there has been an omnibus habeas corpus hearing at 

which the applicant for habeas corpus was represented by counsel or appeared pro 

se having knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. 

Syl. Pt. 2, Losh v. McKenzie, 166 W.Va. 762, 277 S.E.2d 606, 608 (1981). 

2
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Factually-supported allegations of ineffective assistance of habeas counsel constitute an 

exception to this rule. See Syl. Pt. 4, Losh, 166 W.Va. at 762-63, 277 S.E.2d at 608. However, 

respondent warden correctly notes that petitioner alleged the ineffectiveness of trial counsel, and 

not of habeas counsel. Accordingly, we agree that the circuit court’s denial of petitioner’s third 

petition should be affirmed. 

Bald assertions “without detailed factual support [do] not justify the issuance of a writ, the 

appointment of counsel, and the holding of a hearing.” Losh, 166 W.Va. at 771, 277 S.E.2d at 612. 

This Court finds that while petitioner alleged ineffectiveness of habeas counsel, he set forth 

detailed factual support only for his claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Because 

petitioner has already had prior habeas proceedings in which he was afforded counsel and a 

hearing, he may not re-raise the ineffectiveness of trial counsel. This Court concludes that the 

circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition. 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. 

Affirmed. 

ISSUED: April 28, 2014 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Chief Justice Robin Jean Davis 

Justice Brent D. Benjamin 

Justice Margaret L. Workman 

Justice Menis E. Ketchum 

Justice Allen H. Loughry II 

3