Opinion ID: 3177143
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Post-conviction Offer

Text: After the Petitioner’s conviction, the State filed a recidivist action against him pursuant to West Virginia Code § 61-11-18, asserting that the Petitioner had multiple prior felony convictions. The State offered a plea deal to the Petitioner that required him to: (1) “acknowledge in open Court today that he committed the offenses for which he was convicted;” 7 At a later plea hearing on the Post-conviction Offer, the Petitioner maintained that although he drove his accomplices to the McFarland home, he never entered the house. 6 (2) plead guilty to Perjury and be sentenced to a term of one (1) to five (5) years; (3) be sentenced to a term of one (1) to five (5) years on the Conspiracy conviction; (4) be sentenced to a term of one (1) to fifteen (15) years on the Burglary conviction; (5) be sentenced to not less than thirty (30) years on the Aggravated Robbery conviction; (6) “acknowledge in open court . . . [that the Petitioner is] the same person that was convicted of burglary in Case No. 03-F-42-0”for recidivist purposes and be sentenced to an additional five (5) years on that basis; and (7) have all the sentences run concurrently. It was understood that under this Post-conviction Offer the Petitioner would be eligible for parole after serving a minimum of ten and one-half years.8 At a June 23, 2009, status conference, one day before the Petitioner’s recidivist trial was scheduled to commence, the State explained that the Post-conviction Offer was off the table. During an explanation to the circuit court concerning the negotiations that had transpired between the Petitioner and the State relating to the Post-conviction Offer, the Petitioner’s counsel argued that under the recidivist statute “that the sentence is just life.” The prosecutor, however, disagreed, stating that the life sentence is “just an additional sentence he’s going to get” and that the prosecutor was going “to ask for 80 years[.]” In 8 The offer was conveyed by trial counsel to the Petitioner, but the Petitioner rejected the offer and made a counter-offer. Under the Petitioner’s counter-offer, the Petitioner would be sentenced to forty years, with discharge at twenty years and parole eligibility in ten years. The State rejected the counter-offer and was planning to seek the maximum sentence. 7 response to the prosecutor’s argument, the Petitioner’s trial counsel said: “Judge, if that’s correct law, I’ve told my client wrong and I want that to be right up front, because I told him that the only sentence tomorrow would be if he’s convicted, that he would be sentenced to life and be eligible after 15 years.” Prior to the foregoing argument, the Petitioner’s trial counsel had not taken a position on whether his client should take the Post-conviction Offer. After the State made its position clear, the Petitioner’s trial counsel stated that [i]f the Court is inclined to think that it can sentence to life and then also sentence on the underlying crimes, I do recommend this offer. Of course, I know . . . [the prosecutor] is withdrawing it, but I may add it would be withdrawn only because of my mistake in the application of the law to the facts.” Thereafter, the circuit court explained to the Petitioner’s trial counsel that with “multiple convictions occurring on the same day, arising from separate acts” meant that “there can only be one enhancement.” The court further explained that it could give separate sentences on the other convictions and could also determine that the sentences should run consecutively. The Petitioner’s trial counsel informed the circuit court that the Petitioner had rejected the plea due to “erroneous advice.” As the Petitioner’s trial counsel told the circuit court: 8 Judge, if the Court is inclined to think that they can still sentence under the underlying offense, then this offer was basically rejected because of erroneous advice. He asked me “what’s the worst that could happen,” and I said the worst that could happen is a life sentence with an eligibility, which I checked the Code again, a parole eligibility date of 15 years. If the Court is inclined to think not only can he get a life sentence, but it can go back and sentence him for the underlying aggravated robbery, my advice would be entirely different from when this offer was made. If the Court is inclined to think that it can do that, then my opinion on this offer would drastically change. The circuit court again explained to the Petitioner’s trial counsel that only one of the convictions could be enhanced, but that the State could seek consecutive sentencing. At this point, the prosecutor put the Post-conviction Offer back on the table. After the Petitioner’s trial counsel conferred with the Petitioner, the Petitioner accepted the offer so long as he could keep his right to appeal.9 The State agreed to this. The next day, June 24, 2009, a plea hearing was held in which the Petitioner pled guilty to both the recidivist and the perjury charges. The Petitioner testified that he went over all the documents regarding the Post-conviction Offer, read them himself, discussed it 9 The Petitioner appealed this issue, arguing that his three felony convictions resulting from the McFarland robbery should be treated as one conviction subjecting the Petitioner to only one term of incarceration – life with parole eligibility in fifteen years. This Court rejected that argument in State v. Von Raines, No. 101296, (W.Va. Apr. 18, 2011)(memorandum decision). 9 “[t]horoughly” with his trial counsel, and “completely comprehend[ed] it.” The Petitioner further testified that he met with his trial counsel between ten and fifteen times since the criminal matter started and that they had been together constantly during the trial. When asked by the circuit court if he was satisfied with the work his trial counsel had done for him during the case, the Petitioner stated, “I’m more than satisfied, yes.” The court also asked the Petitioner if there was anything that he could think of that he asked of his trial counsel that his trial counsel failed to follow up on. The Petitioner responded, “Not at the current time, no.” Finally, the court asked the Petitioner if he was satisfied overall with his trial counsel compared to other attorneys he had had in other counties. The Petitioner responded, “Completely, yes.” Upon accepting the Petitioner’s plea, the circuit court sentenced him a term of: two to fifteen years on the burglary charge;10 thirty years on the robbery charge; and one to five years on the conspiracy charge. The sentences were to run consecutively. The court also sentenced the Petitioner to a term of one to ten years on the perjury charge. The perjury sentence was to run concurrently with the conspiracy sentence.11 10 The Petitioner’s conviction for burglary was enhanced pursuant to West Virginia Code § 61-11-18. 11 The circuit court noted that the State represented that “it would be a 10 ½ year minimum sentence before he would be eligible for parole considerations.” 10