State v. Martin R., No. 15-0580, SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA, 2016 W. Va. LEXIS 237, April 12, 2016, Filed, Issued, Memorandum decisions are subject to the rehearing procedures set forth in Revised Rule 25. Unless otherwise provided, the memorandum decision is not final until the Court has issued a mandate under Rule 26., SEE WEST VIRGINIA RULE 21 OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE FOR CITATION OF MEMORANDUM OPINIONS.
This is an appeal of petitioner Martin R. in the case of re-sentencing him to prison for two more terms of incarceration due to being charged of committing sexual abuse by a parent, one term of first-degree sexual abuse, and another term of supervised release. The petitioner states that he was denied his right to appeal his own conviction and that his sentence was extreme. He even states that there was insufficient evidence to support his guilty plea he had agreed to previously.
When Martin’s case was originally tried, he has undergone a forensic psychiatry evaluation in order to determine if the defendant petitioner was able to stand trial and take responsibility for his crimes. The forensic psychiatrist determined that Martin was psychologically sound and able to stand trial for his actions. At a later date, a plea agreement was reached between Martin and the State which provided a statement from Martin supporting his guilty plea to two counts of sexual abuse by a parent and one count first-degree sexual abuse. This agreement was exchanged with understanding between both parties and the statement that no evidence from the petitioner is present to counter-argue this guilty plea was also understood. Upon this agreement, the court also factored in Martin’s medication influences and ruled this factor out as a possible influence on Martin’s agreement and consent.
This recent appeal that petitioner Martin is attempting is in direct violation of the plea agreement. Because of this, the petitioner tries to plead incompetent at the time of this plea agreement. It was recorded that Martin understood clearly what the plea agreement entailed and the forensic psychiatrist had cleared him to be competent. This case was affirmed by the court because of the lack of evidence to support the petitioner’s appeal.
Forensic Summary by Kiana DelGrosso