Opinion

Zachary Knotts v. State of West Virginia

Court
West Virginia Supreme Court
Filed
Jun 3, 2020
Status
Published
Nature of suit
Civil-Other
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 11.8%

The opinion

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

Zachary Knotts,

Petitioner Below, Petitioner FILED

June 3, 2020

vs.) No. 19-0304 (Marion County 19-C-1) EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA

State of West Virginia,

Respondent Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Zachary Knotts, self-represented, appeals the March 1, 2019, order of the Circuit

Court of Marion County denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. Respondent State of

West Virginia (“the State”), by counsel Holly M. Flanigan, filed a summary response in support

of the circuit court’s order. Petitioner filed a reply.

The Court has considered the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal

arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided

by oral argument. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the briefs, and the record

presented, the Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these reasons,

a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court’s order is appropriate under Rule 21 of the

Rules of Appellate Procedure.

On September 30, 2010, petitioner was arrested and charged with the offense of threats of

terrorist acts in violation of West Virginia Code § 61-6-24(b). Following the February 7, 2011,

indictment of petitioner, the State filed a motion for a competency evaluation. The Circuit Court

of Marion County held a hearing on the issue of petitioner’s competency on March 11, 2011. By

order entered March 23, 2011, the circuit court determined that petitioner was not competent to

stand trial and committed him to William R. Sharpe, Jr. Hospital (“the hospital”) pursuant to West

Virginia Code § 27-6A-3(h) until either the circuit court’s jurisdiction over him ended or until such

time as he was found competent to stand trial, whichever occurred sooner. 1

1

West Virginia Code § 27-6A-3(h) provides:

If at any point in the proceedings the defendant is found not competent to

stand trial and is found not substantially likely to attain competency, and if the

defendant has been indicted or charged with a misdemeanor or felony in which the

(continued . . .)

1

On March 4, 2013, petitioner filed a motion, pursuant to West Virginia Code § 27-6A-6,

to establish a defense (other than by reason of mental illness) to the charge against him so that he

could obtain a dismissal of the indictment and end the circuit court’s jurisdiction over him. The

circuit court held a bench trial, as required by West Virginia Code § 27-6A-6, on June 26, 2013.

By order entered July 2, 2013, the circuit court found sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction

of a terrorist threat, pursuant to West Virginia Code § 61-6-24(b), had petitioner been competent

to stand trial. This Court affirmed the circuit court’s determination in State v. Knotts, 233 W. Va.

665, 760 S.E.2d 479 (2014). Accordingly, the circuit court’s jurisdiction over petitioner pursuant

to West Virginia Code § 27-6A-3(h) continued for a period of three years, the maximum sentence

set forth in West Virginia Code § 61-6-24(b). On February 11, 2014, the circuit court’s jurisdiction

over petitioner ended, and he was released from the hospital.

On January 2, 2019, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, alleging a

multitude of constitutional violations in the Knotts criminal proceeding and an inability to continue

his chosen career as a result of that proceeding. The State filed a response on January 11, 2019,

asserting that the petition failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted. By order entered

on March 1, 2019, the circuit court denied the petition, finding:

After reviewing [petitioner’s] petition and the underlying felony case, the

[c]ourt finds that [petitioner] has failed to state a claim that would entitled him to

relief on a writ of error coram nobis. One of the predicate requirements of a writ is

that the petitioner is seeking relief from a “conviction.” [Petitioner] was not

convicted in [Knotts], but was found not competent to stand trial and never regained

misdemeanor or felony does involve an act of violence against a person, then the

court shall determine on the record the offense or offenses of which the person

otherwise would have been convicted, and the maximum sentence he or she could

have received. A defendant shall remain under the court’s jurisdiction until the

expiration of the maximum sentence unless the defendant attains competency to

stand trial and the criminal charges reach resolution or the court dismisses the

indictment or charge. The court shall order the defendant be committed to a mental

health facility designated by the department that is the least restrictive environment

to manage the defendant and that will allow for the protection of the public. Notice

of the maximum sentence period with an end date shall be provided to the mental

health facility. The court shall order a qualified forensic evaluator to conduct a

dangerousness evaluation to include dangerousness risk factors to be completed

within thirty days of admission to the mental health facility and a report rendered

to the court within ten business days of the completion of the evaluation. The

medical director of the mental health facility shall provide the court a written

clinical summary report of the defendant’s condition at least annually during the

time of the court's jurisdiction. The court’s jurisdiction shall continue an additional

ten days beyond any expiration to allow civil commitment proceedings to be

instituted by the prosecutor pursuant to article five of this chapter. The defendant

shall then be immediately released from the facility unless civilly committed.

2

competency during the time that the [c]ourt maintained jurisdiction pursuant to

West Virginia Code § 27-6A-3(h).

Petitioner now appeals the circuit court’s March 1, 2019, order denying his petition for a

writ of error coram nobis. This Court reviews circuit court orders denying coram nobis relief under

the following standard:

“We review the final order and the ultimate disposition under an abuse of

discretion standard, and we review the circuit court’s underlying factual findings

under a clearly erroneous standard. Questions of law are subject to a de novo

review.”

State v. Allen, 208 W. Va. 144, 150, 539 S.E.2d 87, 93 (1999) (quoting Syl. pt. 2,

Walker v. West Virginia Ethics Comm’n, 201 W. Va. 108, 492 S.E.2d 167 (1997)).

State v. Hutton (“Hutton I”), 235 W. Va. 724, 727, 776 S.E.2d 621, 624 (2015). In Syllabus Point

2 of State v. Hutton (“Hutton II”), 239 W. Va. 853, 806 S.E.2d 777 (2017), we held:

“A claim of legal error may be brought in a petition for a writ of error coram

nobis only in extraordinary circumstances and if the petitioner shows that (1) a more

usual remedy is not available; (2) valid reasons exist for not attacking the conviction

earlier; (3) there exists a substantial adverse consequence from the conviction; and

(4) the error presents a denial of a fundamental constitutional right.” Syllabus point

5, [Hutton I].

(Emphasis added.). “It has been recognized that ‘[f]ailure to establish any of the above elements

will defeat a petition for coram nobis relief.’” Hutton II, 239 W. Va. at 858, 806 S.E.2d at 782

(quoting Borelli v. U.S., No. 17-2814 (JLL), 2017 WL 4074027, at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 14, 2017)).

On appeal, petitioner argues that the circuit court should be reversed and this case

remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the constitutional violations he alleges. The State counters

that one of the predicate requirements for seeking a writ of error coram nobis is a prior conviction

and, in petitioner’s criminal case, there was no conviction. Based on our review of the record, we

agree with the State and find that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the

petition.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit court’s March 1, 2019, order denying

petitioner’s petition for a writ of error coram nobis.

Affirmed.

ISSUED: June 3, 2020

CONCURRED IN BY:

3

Chief Justice Tim Armstead

Justice Margaret L. Workman

Justice Elizabeth D. Walker

Justice Evan H. Jenkins

Justice John A. Hutchison

4

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.