STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
 

Dean Eugene Gamble, Jr., 

Petitioner Below, Petitioner FILED 

September 11, 2015 vs) No. 14-0804 (Pocahontas County 14-C-13) RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

Mark A. Williamson, Warden, OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Denmar Correctional Center, and 

West Virginia Parole Board, 

Respondents Below, Respondents 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Dean Eugene Gamble, Jr., appearing pro se, appeals the June 12, 2014, order of 

the Circuit Court of Pocahontas County dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus as moot. 

Respondents Mark A. Williamson, Warden, Denmar Correctional Center and West Virginia 

Parole Board, by counsel Derek A. Knopp, filed a summary response and a motion to dismiss. 

Petitioner filed a response to the motion to dismiss. 

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. 

Petitioner was incarcerated as a result of his convictions for conspiracy to commit a felony, 

delivery of a schedule II controlled substance (cocaine), and failure to register as a sex offender. 

On February 23, 2013, petitioner was granted release on parole. Subsequently, petitioner was 

charged with violating the terms and conditions of his parole by not remaining at the residence 

approved for his parole on May 31, 2013. At the September 5, 2013, parole revocation hearing, 

petitioner pled guilty to the parole violation and respondent board revoked his parole. Petitioner 

was re-incarcerated at Denmar Correctional Center in Pocahontas County, West Virginia. 

On March 26, 2014, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Circuit 

Court of Pocahontas County alleging that respondent board’s revocation of his parole constituted 

legal error. Subsequently, respondents filed a motion to dismiss the petition as moot because 

petitioner was being placed back on parole subject to the approval of his proposed residence. 

Petitioner filed objections that his release on parole would not render his habeas petition moot. On 

June 12, 2014, the circuit court granted respondents’ motion and dismissed the petition as moot 

finding that “this matter has been resolved by the granting of parole[.]” 

1
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Petitioner was not immediately released on parole. However, during the pendency of his 

appeal of the circuit court’s June 12, 2014, order, petitioner informed this Court that his proposed 

residence had been approved, and the relevant authorities have confirmed that petitioner is now 

released on parole. 

Petitioner now appeals the circuit court’s June 12, 2014, dismissal of his petition to this 

Court. We review a circuit court’s dismissal of a habeas petition 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 Cline v. Mirandy, 234 W.Va. 427, __, 765 S.E.2d 583, 584 (2014) (internal quotations 

and citations omitted). In addition, “[m]oot questions or abstract propositions, the decision of 

which would avail nothing in the determination of controverted rights of persons or of property, 

are not properly cognizable by a court.” Syl. Pt. 1, State ex rel. McCabe v. Seifert, 220 W.Va. 79, 

80, 640 S.E.2d 142, 143 (2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 

On appeal, petitioner argues that his release on parole did not render his habeas petition 

moot. See McCabe, 220 W.Va. at 85, 640 S.E.2d at 148 (2006) (declining to decide whether 

inmates on parole are no longer “incarcerated under sentence of imprisonment” for purposes of 

seeking post-conviction habeas corpus relief under West Virginia Code §§ 53-4A-1 to -11). 

Respondents counter that in our opinion in Cline, which was issued after petitioner’s appeal was 

filed, we settled the question of whether parolees in the state penal system may file habeas 

petitions by holding that they may not. See Syl. Pt. 3, 234 W.Va. at __, 765 S.E.2d at 584. We 

agree with respondents that our decision in Cline is dispositive of this case. Accordingly, we 

determine that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing petitioner’s habeas 

petition because it has been rendered moot. 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. 

Affirmed. 

ISSUED: September 11, 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 

2