Opinion ID: 2671053
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Prior Habeas Petitions

Text: The matter now before us is Bush’s third attempt to secure habeas relief in state court. The first petition, filed in the Circuit Court of Ohio County in 1986, was styled State ex rel. Bush v. Hedrick, Warden, no. 86-C-775 (Ohio County), and was instituted under the West Virginia Post-Conviction Habeas Corpus Act, W.Va. Code, 53-4A-1 [1967], et seq. Bush was represented by new counsel, and his petition was amended and supplemented several times. Moreover, pursuant to Losh v. McKenzie, 166 W.Va. 762, 277 S.E.2d 606 (1981), Bush completed a checklist of grounds for relief and was afforded a series of evidentiary hearings. On October 13, 1988, the Circuit Court of Ohio County entered a forty-seven page order denying relief. Bush’s appeal was denied by this Court in December 1989. In the first habeas proceeding, Bush’s counsel did not challenge the substitution of “first degree sexual assault” for “rape” in the trial court’s instructions. He did, however, allege ineffective assistance of counsel and insufficiency of the evidence with regard to the claim of sexual assault. Finding no merit in the allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel, the circuit court stated that “the depth of the effort mounted by the Court appointed defense counsel clearly indicates to the Court that more than an effective defense was presented.” As to the sufficiency of the evidence of sexual assault, the order 5 states: “The Court also concludes that based upon the facts as presented to the trial court that there was more than sufficient evidence for the jury to consider sexual assault for the felony murder rule.”5 Bush’s second state petition for habeas relief was filed in the Circuit Court of Ohio County in 1995. Filed under the West Virginia Post-Conviction Habeas Corpus Act, the case was styled Bush v. Trent, Warden, no. 95-C-43 (Ohio County). In this second proceeding, Bush challenged the scientific evidence relating to the sexual assault component of the underlying case. Bush was again appointed new counsel, who later testified at deposition that the order of appointment limited the representation to the forensic issue. On December 3, 2001, the circuit court entered an order denying relief with regard to Bush’s second habeas petition. Supplemental orders denying relief were entered in January and March 2002. As reflected in the December 3, 2001, order, the circuit court determined that the scientific evidence, at most, indicated that Williams had sexual intercourse at some point on the night of her murder. That evidence, however, was neutral and neither implicated nor excluded Bush as the other party. The circuit court, thus, concluded that the admission of the scientific evidence at trial was not unfairly prejudicial to Bush. Moreover, the December 3, 2001, order reveals that Bush raised an additional issue unrelated to the scientific evidence. According to the order, Bush asserted that his convictions should be set aside because it was uncertain upon which underlying offense the jury relied on to convict him of felony murder, i.e., that if one conviction is bad, “both are bad.” Accordingly, Bush suggested that the circuit court “look at the instructions and the verdict, not the sufficiency of the evidence.” Concluding, however, that Bush failed to show any constitutional error with regard to the underlying felonies, the circuit court rejected Bush’s assertion. 5 It should be noted that, in the first habeas proceeding, Bush alleged error concerning whether the trial court’s instruction on the defense of alibi had improperly shifted the burden of proof. The circuit court rejected that assertion. Thereafter, on January 4, 1990, Bush filed a petition for habeas relief in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. That proceeding ultimately resulted in the decision in Bush v. Legursky, Warden, 966 F.2d 897 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1009 (1992), in which the Fourth Circuit rejected Bush’s challenge to the alibi instruction given at trial. 6 An appeal from the denial of relief as to Bush’s second habeas petition was refused by this Court on November 6, 2002.