Court Opinion

ID: 9952929
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-20 21:18:39.472323+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:42:31.426098
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                                 March 20, 2024
                                                                                  C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK
                             STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA                             SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                     OF WEST VIRGINIA
                           SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

State of West Virginia,
Plaintiff Below, Respondent

v.) No. 22-776 (Kanawha County 22-F-169 and 22-F-205(I))

Fred Lindsey Badger,
Defendant Below, Petitioner

                              MEMORANDUM DECISION

        Petitioner Fred Lindsey Badger appeals the order of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County,
entered on September 22, 2022, sentencing him to a term of imprisonment of one to five years for
his conviction of conspiracy to manufacture, deliver, and/or possess with intent to manufacture
methamphetamine (W. Va. Code § 60A-4-401).1 He challenges the sentence he received, and he
asserts ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon our review, we determine that oral argument is
unnecessary and that a memorandum decision is appropriate. See W. Va. R. App. P. 21.

        Mr. Badger pled guilty by way of information in August 2022 to one count of conspiracy
to possess with intent to deliver methamphetamine. In exchange for his plea, the State agreed to
dismiss an indictment (No. 22-F-169) charging one count of possession with intent to deliver
methamphetamine and two counts of possession with intent to deliver fentanyl, and to forego
prosecution of an unindicted drug crime described in a criminal complaint. At Mr. Badger’s plea
hearing, the court conducted the colloquy prescribed by Call v. McKenzie, 159 W. Va. 191, 220
S.E.2d 665 (1975), and Mr. Badger, in allocution, stated that he “conspired to sell meth on . . . 6-
27-21. . . .” After entering his plea, Mr. Badger filed a motion asking the court to modify his post-
conviction bail to a personal recognizance bond with the condition that he enroll in and complete
a substance abuse program.

        When Mr. Badger appeared for sentencing, his counsel related a long history of drug-
related crimes and argued that Mr. Badger would benefit from a rehabilitation program. However,
the court informed Mr. Badger that it did not find him to be a suitable candidate for alternative
sentencing and sentenced him as described above.

        On appeal, Mr. Badger presents four assignments of error: 1) that the circuit court erred in
“stating [that he] was not eligible for probation and then sentencing him to prison;” 2) that his
counsel was ineffective because counsel failed to advise him that he might receive a penitentiary

       1
        Mr. Badger appears by counsel Justin M. Collin. Respondent State of West Virginia
appears by Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and Assistant Attorney General William E.
Longwell.
                                                 1
sentence rather than alternative sentencing; 3) that the State “impermissibly” led him to believe
that he would receive an alternative sentence; and 4) that the circuit court applied an incorrect
docket number to his notice of post-conviction rights, thereby allowing the court to consider
“inappropriate facts” in sentencing.

        We decline to address Mr. Badger’s second assignment of error—that his counsel was
ineffective—because, as we have explained, “it is often difficult, if not impossible, for this Court
to determine [in a direct appeal] ‘whether the attorney’s performance below was ineffective or
merely the result of trial strategy.’” State v. Woodson, 222 W. Va. 607, 621, 671 S.E.2d 438, 452
(2008) (quoting State v. Bess, 185 W. Va. 290, 293, 406 S.E.2d 721, 724 (1991)). As a result,
“[i]neffective assistance claims raised on direct appeal are presumptively subject to dismissal.”
State v. Miller, 197 W. Va. 588, 611, 476 S.E.2d 535, 558 (1996). Such claims, instead, are more
appropriately pursued in a habeas corpus proceeding so that a factual record can be developed. See
Woodson, 222 W. Va. at 621, 671 S.E.2d at 452.

        Mr. Badger’s remaining assignments of error implicate his sentencing. Unless a sentence
“violates statutory or constitutional commands,” we review a court’s imposition of a sentence for
an abuse of discretion. Syl. Pt. 1, State v. Lucas, 201 W. Va. 271, 496 S.E.2d 221 (1997). Still,
“[s]entences imposed by the trial court, if within statutory limits and if not based on some
[im]permissible factor, are not subject to appellate review.” Syl. Pt. 4, State v. Goodnight, 169
W. Va. 366, 287 S.E.2d 504 (1982).

       Mr. Badger’s brief sets forth assignments of error without elaborating further. 2 The basis
on which he argues that he was entitled to probation is, therefore, not clear. Nevertheless, Mr.
Badger affirmed in his written guilty plea that he understood that he could be sentenced to serve
one to five years in a state correctional facility. Furthermore, the court engaged in a thorough
colloquy prior to accepting Mr. Badger’s plea. Consequently, we find that neither the court nor the
State misrepresented Mr. Badger’s potential incarceration, and Mr. Badger’s first and third
assignments of error wholly lack merit.

        In his final assignment of error, Mr. Badger argues without elucidation that the inclusion
of an incorrect docket number of his notice of post-conviction rights allowed the court to consider
inappropriate facts when sentencing him.3 Though the notice was initially filed using the number
of Mr. Badger’s dismissed indictment, a corrected notice was filed on the same date. There is no
evidence in the appendix record on appeal that the court abused its discretion when sentencing Mr.
Badger.

       2
        Mr. Badger’s counsel assisted him in filing his brief pursuant to Rule 10(c)(10)(b) of the
West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure.
       3
          Mr. Badger argues that the court relied on “inappropriate facts,” not impermissible
factors. We have recognized that “the impermissible factors a court should not consider in
sentencing include such matters as ‘race, sex, national origin, creed, religion, and socioeconomic
status . . . .’” State v. Moles, No. 18-0903, 2019 WL 5092415, *2 (W. Va. Oct. 11, 2019)
(memorandum decision) (quoting United States v. Onwuemene, 933 F.2d 650, 651 (8th Cir. 1991)).
                                                 2
       For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

                                                   Affirmed.

ISSUED: March 20, 2024

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Justice Tim Armstead
Justice Elizabeth D. Walker
Justice John A. Hutchison
Justice William R. Wooton
Justice C. Haley Bunn

                                               3