Court Opinion

ID: 9927781
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-29 22:44:23.402281+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:16.466654
License: Public Domain

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
                           SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                       FILED
Shane Miller,                                                                  January 25, 2024
Petitioner Below, Petitioner                                                      C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK
                                                                                SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                      OF WEST VIRGINIA
vs.) No. 22-774 (Harrison County 19-C-160-3)

Donnie Ames, Superintendent,
Mount Olive Correctional Complex,
Respondent Below, Respondent.1

                               MEMORANDUM DECISION

        Petitioner Shane Miller appeals the Circuit Court of Harrison County’s September 28,
2022, order denying his petition for post-conviction habeas corpus relief.2 Upon our review, we
determine oral argument is unnecessary and that a memorandum decision is appropriate. See W.
Va. R. App. P. 21(c). On appeal, petitioner alleges his attorney, Nancy Ulrich, provided ineffective
assistance of counsel because she failed to assert a diminished capacity claim based upon
petitioner’s history of head injury and voluntary intoxication at the time of the crimes. Petitioner
further argues that the court erred when it denied his claim of structural error, alleging that he
instructed his attorney, Perry Jones, to appeal his probation revocation but Jones failed to do so.

       In May 2012, petitioner was indicted for two counts of grand larceny, four counts of
daytime burglary, one count of nighttime burglary, one count of first-degree robbery, and one
count of conspiracy to commit first-degree robbery. In June 2012, petitioner pled guilty to second-
degree robbery, grand larceny, and two counts of daytime burglary. After serving a year in jail and
completing the Youthful Offenders Program at the Anthony Center, petitioner was placed on five
years of probation. While on probation, petitioner was charged and convicted for first-degree
murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder.

       1
          At the time of the filing of petitioner’s appeal, he was housed at Northern Correctional
Facility, and Karen Pszczolkowski was listed as the respondent. Since the filing of his appeal,
however, petitioner has been moved to Mount Olive Correctional Complex. The appropriate party
has been substituted under Rule 41(c) of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure.
       2
         Petitioner appears by counsel Jeremy B. Cooper. Respondent appears by Attorney
General Patrick Morrisey and Assistant Attorney General Lara K. Bissett.

                                                 1
        In March 2016, the State filed a petition to revoke petitioner’s probation based upon the
two felony convictions and other technical violations. Petitioner’s counsel moved to dismiss the
petition to revoke probation as untimely, and the circuit court denied this motion because petitioner
suffered no prejudice from the State’s delay in filing the petition to revoke. After a hearing, the
court revoked petitioner’s probation and sentenced him to consecutive terms of one to fifteen years
for each count of daytime burglary, five to eighteen years in prison for second-degree robbery, and
one to ten years for grand larceny. At the conclusion of the revocation hearing, the court informed
petitioner of his right to appeal.

        In June 2019, petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction habeas corpus relief alleging
that his attorney, Nancy Ulrich, provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to investigate
a diminished capacity defense prior to his guilty plea and failing to appeal the order revoking his
probation. At the omnibus hearing, petitioner’s trial attorney testified she was aware that petitioner
suffered a head injury when he was seventeen years old and had a history of abusing controlled
substances. Petitioner’s attorney testified that “she was aware of the requirements to present a
diminished capacity defense and based on her experience and time spent with [p]etitioner, he did
not have a valid claim for diminished capacity.” Petitioner’s attorney did not request a diminished
capacity evaluation because Ulrich never observed any behaviors that gave her reason to doubt
whether petitioner was criminally responsible. Other than his own testimony, petitioner did not
provide the court with any evidence to support his claim that he lacked criminal responsibility at
the time he committed the crimes. Petitioner presented no expert testimony at the omnibus hearing
to rebut Ulrich’s testimony. Given the lack of evidence to support petitioner’s claim of ineffective
assistance, the court found petitioner did not meet his burden of proving that his trial counsel acted
in an objectively unreasonable manner and denied habeas relief on this issue.

         Petitioner also alleged he received ineffective assistance of counsel because he instructed
his attorney, Perry Jones, to appeal the revocation of his probation, but counsel did not do so. On
this point, petitioner’s attorney “could not remember the exact contents of the conversation with
[petitioner] regarding an appeal, but Jones was sure that at some point he did discuss with the
[p]etitioner that there was not an appealable issue.” The court found petitioner “also testified that
he recalled having such a discussion with [his attorney] regarding an appeal.” Although petitioner
testified that he asked his attorney to appeal the probation revocation, the circuit court found
petitioner presented no evidence to support this allegation. Over three years passed between the
revocation of petitioner’s probation and the filing of his petition for habeas corpus, and petitioner
never informed the court of his desire to appeal or his attorney’s alleged refusal to do so, even
though he had contacted the court on other occasions “when he was unsatisfied with his court-
appointed representation.” Further, petitioner did not provide any documentary evidence to support
his assertion that Jones had refused to file an appeal when requested to do so. Given a lack of
credible evidence supporting petitioner’s claim that he asked his attorney to appeal his probation
revocation, the court denied habeas relief, holding that “[w]ithout instructions from the [p]etitioner
to take an appeal,” his attorney was not obliged to do so.

        On appeal, petitioner claims the circuit court erred when it held petitioner did not receive
ineffective assistance of counsel.

              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

                                                  2
       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, Mathena v. Haines, 219 W. Va. 417, 633 S.E.2d 771 (2006). We have long held that

       claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are to be governed by the two-prong test
       established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d
       674 (1984): (1) Counsel’s performance was deficient under an objective standard
       of reasonableness; and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s
       unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different.

Syl. Pt. 5, in part, State v. Miller, 194 W. Va. 3, 459 S.E.2d 114 (1995).

        Relevant to petitioner’s claim that his attorney failed to investigate a diminished capacity
defense, we have held that a criminal defense attorney is obliged “to undertake reasonable pre-trial
investigation of possible mental defenses where there are indications that a defendant suffers from
a significant mental defect.” Syl. Pt. 7, in part, State ex rel. Vernatter v. Warden, 207 W. Va. 11,
528 S.E.2d 207 (1999). To substantiate a diminished capacity defense, petitioner must “introduce
expert testimony regarding a mental disease or defect that rendered the defendant incapable, at the
time the crime was committed, of forming a mental state that is an element of the crime charged.”
Syl. Pt. 3, in part, State v. Joseph, 214 W. Va. 525, 590 S.E.2d 718 (2003), accord State v.
Simmons, 172 W. Va. 590, 600, 309 S.E.2d 89, 99 (1983) (holding that “[t]he existence of a mental
illness is not alone sufficient to trigger a diminished capacity defense. It must be shown by
psychiatric testimony that some type of mental illness rendered the defendant incapable of forming
the specific intent elements.”).

        In this case, petitioner presented no evidence at the omnibus hearing, other than his own
self-serving testimony, that his attorney had reason to believe he had a diminished capacity.
Petitioner did not present any expert testimony at the omnibus hearing, which was necessary to
prove his claim of diminished capacity. Thus, we hold the court did not err when it ruled that
petitioner’s counsel was not ineffective in failing to seek an expert opinion on diminished capacity.

         Petitioner also argues that his attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel when he
failed to appeal the revocation of his probation despite instructions from petitioner to file an appeal.
In its order denying habeas relief, the circuit court rejected this claim because petitioner provided
no evidence to support his assertion that he asked his attorney to appeal. Petitioner did not provide
any evidence at the omnibus hearing, other than his own testimony, that he asked his attorney to
appeal the probation revocation. Undermining the credibility of petitioner’s stated desire to appeal,
the circuit court found it relevant that there was “no record of the [p]etitioner having written
directly to the Court regarding his desire to appeal and [his attorney’s] alleged refusal to do so, as
the [p]etitioner had previously done when he was unsatisfied with his court-appointed
representation.” Further, the court advised petitioner of his right to appeal at the conclusion of his
revocation hearing, and petitioner waited over three years to raise this issue in a petition for habeas
corpus, which impairs his self-serving claim that he desired to appeal the probation revocation.

                                                   3
       In a case such as this, where petitioner did not instruct his attorney to file an appeal, “the
question whether counsel has performed deficiently by not filing a notice of appeal is best
answered by first asking a separate, but antecedent question: whether counsel in fact consulted
with the defendant about an appeal.” Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 478 (2000). The court
found that counsel did consult with petitioner about an appeal and advised him there were no
appealable issues. Because petitioner did not request his attorney to file an appeal, and there were
no appealable issues, counsel did not perform in a professionally unreasonable manner. See id.

        Considering the circumstances in this case, petitioner failed to prove a reasonable
probability that petitioner would have timely appealed his probation revocation but for his
attorney’s deficient performance. Thus, we conclude that the court did not err when it found that
petitioner failed to prove he reasonably demonstrated to counsel that he was interested in appealing
the revocation of his probation, and we hold the court did not err when it denied habeas relief on
this issue.

       For the reasons stated above, this Court finds no error in its denial of habeas relief, and
affirms the September 28, 2022, final order of the Circuit Court of Harrison County.

                                                                                          Affirmed.

ISSUED: January 25, 2024
CONCURRED IN BY:

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

                                                 4