STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
 

Gary Stanley, FILED 

Petitioner Below, Petitioner April 10, 2015 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS vs) No. 13-1095 (Kanawha County 06-MISC-311) OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Mark Williamson, Warden, 

Denmar Correctional Center, 

Respondent Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Gary Stanley, by counsel Barron M. Helgoe, appeals the order of the Circuit 

Court of Kanawha County denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Respondent, Mark 

Williamson, Warden, Denmar Correctional Center, by counsel Derek A. Knopp, filed a response, 

to which petitioner replied. Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel 

when he entered a guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter and kidnapping. 

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 circuit court’s order is appropriate under Rule 21 

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

This appeal stems from the circuit court’s denial of petitioner’s habeas corpus petition 

following an August 13, 2013, omnibus evidentiary hearing.1 Petitioner’s convictions stem from 

an indictment returned in 2003, charging him with first degree murder and kidnapping. Petitioner 

was alleged to have participated in the killing of his roommate, Deran Mazujian, in Dunbar, 

West Virginia. According to the record, one of petitioner’s co-defendants, Ulysses Anthony 

Bellamy, stated that he and another co-defendant, Michael Varnado, began beating the victim in 

the victim’s bedroom. Bellamy waited with the victim while petitioner traveled to Walmart to 

purchase bullets.2 When petitioner returned with the bullets, he beat the victim, and Bellamy shot 

1 As petitioner notes, this is the second time that this Court has addressed petitioner’s 

request for habeas relief. Petitioner filed his first habeas petition pro se with the circuit court in 

2006, which was denied by order entered on January 12, 2007. On appeal, this Court remanded 

the matter to the circuit court by order entered on July 27, 2007, on the issue of ineffective 

assistance of counsel. After numerous changes of petitioner’s habeas counsel, an amended 

habeas petition was filed on May 20, 2013. The circuit court held an omnibus hearing on August 

13, 2013, and denied the petition by order entered on September 17, 2013. 

1
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the victim through a pillow. The victim’s body was wrapped in a blanket, placed in a box, and 

dumped over a hillside near Wertz Avenue in Charleston. The autopsy revealed that the victim 

died from multiple blunt force injuries to the head and a gunshot wound to the face. 

Petitioner ultimately reached a plea agreement with the State.3 The non-binding 

agreement allowed petitioner to plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter and kidnapping. 

According to the agreement, the State would not oppose a sentence of life with mercy for 

kidnapping; would defer to the circuit court on the appropriate sentence for voluntary 

manslaughter; but would reserve the right to argue that the two sentences run consecutively. 

Importantly, the State indicated on the record before the circuit court that both parties were 

aware that sentencing was in the sole discretion of the circuit court and that the parties’ 

recommendations were not binding upon the court. 

The circuit court sentenced petitioner to a determinate term of fifteen years for voluntary 

manslaughter and a term of life with mercy for kidnapping. The circuit court ordered that the 

sentences be served consecutively. 

In his habeas petition to the circuit court and on appeal of the denial thereof to this Court, 

petitioner makes the same argument -- that his guilty plea was not entered knowingly, 

voluntarily, or intelligently because of inaccurate advice by his plea counsel. Petitioner contends 

that his counsel told him and his family that he would only serve ten years in prison with regard 

to the kidnapping and a term of only three to fifteen years for voluntary manslaughter, and that 

the sentences would run concurrently. Plea counsel disputed petitioner’s account and testified at 

the omnibus hearing that he would not have made promises to petitioner regarding petitioner’s 

sentence. Plea counsel testified that he would have told petitioner that he would not anticipate 

petitioner receiving life without mercy, but would not have stated anything further with respect 

to the maximum sentence. 

In the habeas proceeding, the circuit court found that the record from the plea hearing 

reflected that petitioner was properly questioned in all respects regarding his understanding of 

the rights he was waiving by entering a guilty plea, the terms of the agreement, and that the court 

was not bound by any sentencing recommendations or arguments of the parties. The circuit court 

denied petitioner’s habeas petition by order entered September 17, 2013, and this appeal 

followed. 

This Court applies the following standard of review in regard to a circuit court’s denial of 

a habeas petition: “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, in part, Mathena v. Haines, 219 

W.Va. 417, 633 S.E.2d 771 (2006). Moreover, this Court has stated that “[a]n ineffective 

assistance of counsel claim presents a mixed question of law and fact[.]” State ex rel. Daniel v. 

2 While at Walmart, petitioner told an individual in the parking lot, “If you give me a ride 

back to Dunbar, you’ll see somebody get killed.” 

3 Petitioner’s plea counsel was Edward Rebrook, III. 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Legursky, 195 W.Va. 314, 320, 465 S.E.2d 416, 422 (1995). Therefore, “we review the circuit 

court’s findings of historical fact for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. This means 

that we review the ultimate legal claim of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo and the 

circuit court’s findings of underlying predicate facts more deferentially.” Id. 

On appeal, petitioner argues that his plea counsel was ineffective because, several days 

prior to the entry of his plea, the State sent petitioner’s counsel a proposed plea agreement that 

included an incorrect sentence for the offense of kidnapping. This letter stated that the sentence 

for kidnapping was three to ten years, which all parties agree was in error. Petitioner’s plea 

counsel forwarded the letter to petitioner without catching the mistake therein. 

The mistake in the proposed plea document was noticed on the day of petitioner’s plea 

hearing and his counsel advised petitioner of the correct possible sentence. Petitioner argues that 

his counsel should have ensured that petitioner was not faced with having to make a last second 

decision of such magnitude. 

The record reflects that petitioner’s counsel and the assistant prosecutor set forth on the 

record at the plea hearing that the State had sent petitioner’s counsel a plea agreement with the 

incorrect sentence for kidnapping and plea counsel admitted that he sent petitioner a letter 

referencing the incorrect sentence in that document. Plea counsel stated that he explained the 

correct sentence to petitioner that morning. The exchange between plea counsel, the State, and 

circuit judge took place at the bench without petitioner being present. In his habeas petition, 

petitioner argues that he should have been asked to confirm his counsel’s representations that he 

explained the accurate sentencing possibilities. 

In addition, petitioner contends that he received a sentence more severe than expected 

and constitutionally disproportionate to the sentence imposed on the admitted killer. Petitioner 

states that Bellamy pled guilty to first degree murder with a firearm and was sentenced to life 

with mercy, and the kidnapping charge was dismissed. 

Respondent Warden argues that, although petitioner’s counsel erred in sending petitioner 

the document listing an incorrect kidnapping sentence, counsel corrected the error as soon as it 

was discovered, and importantly, in advance of the plea hearing. As respondent notes, the 

erroneous plea document was corrected, explained to petitioner, and he proceeded to enter his 

plea. Also, petitioner understood that the agreement did not bind the judge to impose a specific 

sentence. Finally, with respect to comparing petitioner’s sentence to Bellamy’s, the record shows 

that the victim died of blunt force injury and a gunshot. As respondent argues, petitioner was no 

less to blame for the victim’s death. 

Our review of the record reflects no clear error or abuse of discretion by the circuit court. 

Having reviewed the circuit court’s “Order Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus” entered 

on September 17, 2013, we hereby adopt and incorporate the circuit court’s well-reasoned 

3
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

findings and conclusions as to the assignment of error raised in this appeal. The Clerk is directed 

to attach a copy of the circuit court’s order4 to this memorandum decision. 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. 

Affirmed. 

ISSUED: April 10, 2015 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Chief Justice Margaret L. Workman 

Justice Robin Jean Davis 

Justice Brent D. Benjamin 

Justice Menis E. Ketchum 

Justice Allen H. Loughry II 

4 We note that the handwriting on page 2 of the circuit court’s order is how the document 

exists in the circuit clerk’s file. 

4