Opinion ID: 2671053
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Current Habeas Petition

Text: The current matter, Bush’s third habeas proceeding in state court, arises from his amended petition filed in 2011. The amended petition is styled State ex rel. Bush v. Ballard, Warden, no. 06-C-342 and no. 05-C-442 (Ohio County), and was also filed under the West Virginia Post- Conviction Habeas Corpus Act. Once again, new counsel was appointed to represent Bush. Bush challenged the substitution of “first degree sexual assault” for “rape” in the instructions given at trial and contends that the substitution denied him the right to due process of law, since the Legislature did not place “first degree sexual assault” in the felony murder statute until 1987. At the time of the alleged murders in 1982 and trial in 1983, “rape” was a specified predicate offense in the felony murder statute. Therefore, Bush argues, the trial court improperly legislated from the bench by changing the word “rape” to the phrase “first degree sexual assault.” Moreover, Bush’s prior habeas counsel were “collectively ineffective” in not pursuing that issue. In the case of Bush’s second habeas proceeding, which primarily concerned scientific evidence, Bush asserted that his counsel was ineffective in not adequately framing the issue.6 Following hearings on the petition, the habeas court entered an order on February 15, 2013, granting Bush relief in habeas corpus. The convictions were set aside, and Bush was granted a new trial. The habeas court acknowledged that, with regard to the first habeas petition, Bush received an omnibus hearing pursuant to Losh v. McKenzie, supra. Nevertheless, the habeas court found that the validity of substituting “sexual assault” for “rape” in the instructions in the underlying trial had not been adjudicated or waived. In addition, the habeas court found that Bush’s counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the issue. The habeas court reached a similar conclusion with regard to Bush’s second petition. The habeas court determined that Bush’s counsel in that proceeding was either ineffective or only representing Bush to challenge the scientific evidence. 6 During the current habeas proceeding, the parties stipulated that neither trial counsel nor previous habeas counsel explained the instructional issue of rape versus sexual assault to Bush. 7 Concluding that the instructions were unconstitutional and that Bush’s trial and prior habeas counsel should have challenged the instructions, the habeas court stated: Because “sexual assault” was not an enumerated felony in the felony murder statute at the time of either the crime or Petitioner’s trial, the jury instruction advised the jury that they could convict Petitioner if they found him guilty of an act which was not included in the felony murder statute, therefore making said instruction unconstitutional. The Warden appeals to this Court from the February 15, 2013, order.