Link to PDF file
No. 32784 - Shawn Pethel, aka Shawn Pethel, Petitioner Below, Appellee v. Thomas
McBride, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Center, Respondent
Starcher, J., dissenting:
I write separately to express my disagreement with the majority decision. In
my judgment Alabama v. Bozeman, 533 U.S. 146, 121 S.Ct. 2079, 150 L.Ed.2d 188 (2001)
clearly controls the outcome of this case and the circuit court should be affirmed.
To avoid what should be the obvious application of Bozeman to this case, the
majority spews out a parade of the horribles from the facts in the underlying case simply
to poison the water to persuade the reader of the opinion that this defendant should be
granted no relief. Next, the majority has manufactured a series of syllabus points that are
result-oriented with obfuscated meanings, all to avoid writing anything that might be
favorable to a criminal defendant with whom it is easy to find disfavor. I disagree with using
a parade of the horribles to serve as persuasive language when the facts of the criminal
charges in the underlying case are not really relevant to deciding the case. This case should
have been decided on what happened procedurally below and the law _ not how bad a
defendant's past conduct may appear to be.
First, I believe that the procedural aspect of the majority opinion _ which states
post-conviction habeas corpus actions under W.Va. Code, 53-4A-1 (1967) may not be
used to test the validity of procedures under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act
(IAD), W.Va. Code, 62-14-1, et seq. (1971) because the IAD post-dates the habeas statute, W.Va. Code, 53-4A-1 (1967) _ is clearly wrong.
The habeas statute, W.Va. Code, 53-4A-1(a) (1967), states in part that:
Any person convicted of a crime and incarcerated under
sentence of imprisonment therefor who contends that . . . the
conviction or sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack
upon any ground of alleged error heretofore available under the
common law or any statutory provision of this State . . . , may
. . . file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum,
and prosecute the same, seeking release from such illegal
imprisonment, correction of the sentence, the setting aside of the
plea, conviction and sentence, or other relief . . ..
(Emphasis added). The interpretation given to this statute by the majority excludes by
implication from the post-conviction habeas corpus procedure all issues arising from statutes
adopted by our Legislature after 1967. This is not logical, nor do I believe that such an
interpretation was intended by the Legislature.
We held in Syllabus Point 4 of Losh v. McKenzie, 166 W.Va. 762, 277 S.E.2d
606 (1981) that . . . an applicant [for habeas corpus relief] may . . . petition [under W.Va.
Code, 53-4A-1, et seq. (1967)] the court on the following grounds: . . . a change in the law,
favorable to the applicant, which may be applied retroactively. Bozeman was applied
retroactively by the U.S. Supreme Court. Bozeman was decided after Pethel's conviction and
sentencing. Thus, the legal landscape was changed favorable to Pethel, and under Losh, the
matter is properly before this Court.
Second, the majority opinion holds that dismissals under the West Virginia
IAD may be with or without prejudice; this is likewise clearly wrong. The majority opinion
on this point turns on Congressional passage of amendments to the federal IAD in 1988
which permitted dismissals and under the federal IAD to be either with or without prejudice,
18 U.S.C. App. 2 § 9, and upon our state Constitutional rule making authority. The opinion,
however, ignores the fact that Bozeman
was decided after
the passage of the federal
amendments. Furthermore, Bozeman
involved an interpretation of Alabama's IAD which
contains the same dismissal language as West Virginia's IAD. (See footnote 1)
Finally, the majority opinion ignores express language in Bozeman, where the
U.S. Supreme Court stated:
As a congressionally sanctioned interstate compact within the
Compact Clause of the United States Constitution, Art. I, § 10,
cl. 3, the [Interstate Agreement on Detainers] is a federal law
subject to federal construction.
533 U.S. at 149, 121 S.Ct. at 2082, 150 L.Ed.2d at 192 (quoting New York v. Hill, 528 U.S.
110, 111, 120 S.Ct. 659, 662 (2000), and citing Carchman v. Nash, 473 U.S. 716, 719, 105
S.Ct. 3401, 87 L.Ed.2d 516 (1985); Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U.S. 433, 442, 101 S.Ct. 703, 66
L.Ed.2d 641 (1981)).
We recognized this principle in Syllabus Point 3 of State v. Inscore, ___ W.Va.
___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (No. 32855, June 26, 2006), where we stated:
The Agreement on Detainers, W.Va. Code, 62-14-1 is a
congressionally-sanctioned interstate compact within the
Compact Clause, U.S. Const., Art.1, § 10, cl. 3, and thus is a
federal law subject to federal construction.
The majority has chosen to ignore the ruling in Bozeman and charts a separate path,
notwithstanding the clear federal construction by the U.S. Supreme Court and our recent
holding in Inscore. A federal construction and the clear language of Bozeman requires a dismissal of the instant case _ as the U.S. Supreme Court did in Bozeman and the circuit
court below did in the instant case.
I can understand why the majority finds the conduct of the defendant giving
rise to the underlying case distasteful; so do I. Nevertheless, as distasteful as the facts may
be, I believe my oath of office provides me no other choice but to respect the decision of the
United States Supreme Court.
There are times as judges and justices when we are called upon to make
difficult decisions. Sometimes those decisions are not only distasteful, but likely to be
unpopular with the public. This case exemplifies such a circumstance. Having served as
circuit judge I know the difficulty that is present when such decisions affect the very
community in which we live. However, we are called to a higher duty _ to uphold the rule
of law. This is what the circuit judge in this case did below. And I applaud him for his
Respectfully, I dissent, and I am authorized to say that Justice Albright joins
in this dissent.
Bozeman was decided in 2001. The affected Alabama conviction was in 1997.