Keith R. Jeffers, Petitioner Below, Petitioner
Donnie Ames, Superintendent, Mt. Olive Correctional Complex, Respondent Below, Respondent
Kanawha County 17-P-84
Keith R. Jeffers, pro se, appeals the May 14, 2018, order of
the Circuit Court of Kanawha County denying his petition for
a writ of habeas corpus. Respondent Donnie Ames,
Superintendent, Mt. Olive Correctional Complex,
counsel Scott E. Johnson, filed a response in support of the
circuit court's order. Petitioner filed a reply.
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 orders is appropriate under
Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
was convicted on January 28, 2008, of three counts of
first-degree murder, one count of attempted first-degree
murder, one count of attempted second-degree murder, two
counts of malicious assault, and one count of burglary. With
regard to the murder convictions, the jury did not recommend
mercy. Accordingly, the circuit court sentenced petitioner to
three life terms of incarceration without the possibility of
parole and imposed the statutory maximum sentence for each of
the other counts. The circuit court ordered that petitioner
serve his sentences consecutively. Petitioner sought review
of his convictions, but this Court refused his appeal on June
3, 2009. The Supreme Court of the United States denied
certiorari. See Jeffers v. West Virginia, 559 U.S.
26, 2010, petitioner filed his first petition for a writ of
habeas corpus, alleging four grounds of relief: (1) that a
number of jurors were dismissed by the circuit court and the
attorneys in advance of trial without petitioner's
knowledge and without him being present; (2) that the circuit
court erred in instructing the jury with regard to evidence
of flight; (3) that the circuit court erred in failing to
grant a continuance to permit the defense to locate a
witness; and (4) that the circuit court erred in making
various evidentiary rulings at trial. By order entered June
11, 2010, the circuit court denied habeas relief without a
hearing, finding that the allegations regarding the dismissal
of the jurors were untrue and that the other grounds lacked
merit based upon the record before the court. Petitioner did
not appeal the denial of his first habeas petition.
October 22, 2010, petitioner filed his second habeas
petition, alleging a total of seven grounds for relief. The
first four grounds were the same four grounds that petitioner
previously raised in his first habeas proceeding. However,
the final three grounds set forth in the second habeas
petition were new: (1) that the circuit court improperly
interfered with the underlying criminal case against
petitioner; (2) that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct;
and (3) that petitioner's trial counsel provided
ineffective assistance. On October 25, 2010, the circuit
court denied petitioner's second habeas petition without
a hearing. Petitioner appealed the circuit court's
October 25, 2010, order in Jeffers v. Ballard
("Jeffers I"), No. 11-0433, 2012 WL
3031055 ( W.Va. Mar. 12, 2012) (memorandum decision). This
Court affirmed the denial of petitioner's second habeas
February 15, 2017, petitioner filed a third habeas petition,
alleging five grounds of relief: (1) that petitioner's
trial counsel provided ineffective assistance; (2) that the
prosecutor elicited false testimony from an expert witness;
(3) that the two surviving victims misidentified petitioner
as the shooter through overly suggestive photo arrays; (4)
that insufficient evidence supported petitioner's
convictions; and (5) that petitioner was denied due process
at his trial because of the cumulative effect of various
errors. The circuit court first denied the petition by order
entered May 9, 2017, finding that, based on a review of the
record, "[petitioner's] contentions of fact and law
fail to adequately support his grounds for extraordinary
appealed the circuit court's May 9, 2017, order in
Jeffers v. Terry ("Jeffers II"),
No. 17-0490, 2018 WL 1444292 ( W.Va. Mar. 23, 2018)
(memorandum decision). In Jeffers II, this Court
affirmed the denial of the third habeas petition as to all
grounds except for ineffective assistance of counsel. With
regard to that claim, we reversed the May 9, 2017, order and
remanded the case to the circuit court "for specific
findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether
petitioner's ineffective assistance claim fails under the
applicable Strickland/Miller standard."
Id. at *3.
remand, the circuit court entered a comprehensive order on
May 14, 2018, setting forth specific findings of fact and
conclusions of law showing that petitioner's ineffective
assistance claim was without merit. In finding that
petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief, the court
specifically determined that there was no need to hold a
hearing or appoint habeas counsel.
from the circuit court's May 14, 2018, order denying his
third habeas petition that petitioner now appeals. In
Syllabus Points 1 and 3 of Anstey v. Ballard, 237
W.Va. 411, 787 S.E.2d 864 (2016), we held:
1. "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 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).
. . . .
3. "'A court having jurisdiction over habeas corpus
proceedings may deny a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
without a hearing and without appointing counsel for the
petitioner if the petition, exhibits, affidavits or other
documentary evidence filed therewith show to such court's
satisfaction that the petitioner is entitled to no
relief.' Syllabus Point 1, Perdue v. Coiner, 156
W.Va. 467, 194 S.E.2d 657 (1973)." Syl. Pt. 2, White
v. Haines, 215 W.Va. 698, 601 S.E.2d 18 (2004).
appeal, petitioner argues that the circuit court erred in
failing to hold a hearing and in failing to appoint counsel
prior to finding that his ineffective assistance claim lacked
merit. Respondent counters that the circuit court properly
determined that the claim did not justify the holding of a
hearing or appointment of habeas counsel and correctly denied
petitioner's petition. We agree with respondent.
Jeffers II, we relied on our decision in State
ex rel. Watson v. Hill, 200 W.Va. 201, 488 S.E.2d 476
(1997), in remanding the case for specific findings of fact
and conclusions of law. In Watson, we directed the
habeas court to hold a hearing on the petitioner's
ineffective assistance claim. Id. at 205, 488 S.E.2d
at 480. However, we further indicated that a hearing might
not have been ordered if the habeas court had made findings
adequate to show that the petitioner's claim would have
failed under the Strickland/Miller standard, stating
that "[i]f that was the court's reasoning, it should
have been included in the order[.]" Id. at 204,
488 S.E.2d at 479.
in accordance with our mandate from Jeffers II, the
circuit court set forth findings in its May 14, 2018, order
showing that petitioner's ineffective assistance claim
fails under the Strickland/Miller standard. The
circuit court further made the specific determination that
there was no need to hold a hearing or appoint habeas
counsel. Based on our review of the record, we concur with
the circuit court's findings. Therefore, having reviewed
the circuit court's May 14, 2018, "Final Order
Denying and Dismissing Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus," we hereby adopt and incorporate the circuit
court's well-reasoned findings and conclusions, which we
find address petitioner's assignments of error. The Clerk
is directed to attach a copy of the May 14, 2018, order to
this memorandum decision. Accordingly, we conclude that the
circuit court properly denied petitioner's habeas
foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit court's May 14,
2018, order denying petitioner's third petition for a
writ of habeas corpus.
CONCURRED IN BY: Chief Justice Elizabeth D. Walker Justice,
Margaret L. Workman Justice, Tim Armstead Justice, Evan H.
Jenkins Justice, John A. Hutchison
R. JEFFERS, PETITIONER, V. RALPH TERRY, ACTING WARDEN MOUNT
OLIVE CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX
Action No. 17-P-84
DENYING AND DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
memorandum decision filed March 28, 2018 (which became final
by mandate thirty days later), the West Virginia Supreme
Court of Appeals affirmed this Court's summary dismissal
of all of petitioner's claims in his latest petition for
writ of habeas corpus, but remanded the matter to this Court
for specific findings of fact and conclusions of law as to
petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Court has painstakingly reviewed the entire file from the
underlying criminal conviction, including but not necessarily
limited to hearing transcripts, trial transcripts, motions
filed, orders filed and the petition for appeal filed on
behalf of the petitioner after his conviction. Additionally,
the Court has reviewed the petitions, orders and decisions
from petitioner's previous filings in habeas corpus.
Finally, the Court has reviewed, with particularity, the
claims of ineffective assistance of counsel as pled in the
pending petition along with the exhibits attached to that
petition which purport to support petitioner's claims.
Court has determined that- trial counsel was reasonably
effective, as will be demonstrated below in the findings of
fact, conclusions of law and discussion. As to each instance
in which petitioner claims trial counsel was ineffective,
this Court finds that trial counsel was not ineffective under
the applicable Strickland/Miller standard. That is,
either the actions of trial counsel were not objectively
deficient or those actions did not affect the result of the
proceeding or both. Additionally, some of petitioner's
claims are mere recitation of grounds without any factual
support. This Court has determined that there is no necessity
to appoint counsel in this matter or to hold an evidentiary
specific claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel
are as follows: (a) Trial counsel was ineffective for failing
to investigate others who had motive and could have committed
the murders (including a "purported confession");
(b) trial counsel did not investigate a claim that witness
Toni Pantoja threatened another, unnamed witness; (c) trial
counsel did not investigate a threatening phone call to a
prospective juror; (d) trial counsel did not explore
relationships between the police officers and the deceased
(stating that Detective Richard Ingram and Amanda Ingram
shared a last name); (e) trial counsel, was ineffective for
only calling one witness (petitioner does not state who else
should have been called or what they might have testified
to); (f) trial counsel did not impeach witnesses and (g)
counsel did not object to Detective Ingram's
"false" and "irrelevant" testimony
regarding .40 Smith and "Wesson casings. Additionally,
this Court must note that in support of his claims the
petitioner has chosen to include only partial transcripts.
The petitioner has also chosen to include statements in those
transcripts in presumably his own handwriting. This Court has
relied on, the whole transcripts, minus the commentary in
making its decision.
OF THE CASE
Court's decision, in part, rests upon the overwhelming
nature of the evidence against the petitioner, a detailed
recitation of that evidence will be necessary in this
statement of the case.
petitioner was indicted for, and convicted of, the
first-degree murders of Dennis Lovejoy, Amanda Ingram and
Gregory Childress. He was convicted of attempted murder in
the second degree of James Adkins, and also malicious assault
of Mr. Adkins. The petitioner was convicted for attempted
murder in the first degree of Jerry Allen, and also malicious
assault of Mr. Allen. The petitioner was also indicted for
and convicted of burglary. (Indictment 06-F-472; Jury Verdict
Petitioner was appointed counsel who were active on his
behalf pre-trial filing motions and challenging-the
state's evidence. Counsel moved for, and received
discovery. Counsel moved for individual voir dire.
Counsel moved to dismiss a count of burglary; to exclude
mention of race from the trial; to preclude any mention of
the petitioner's street name "Little"; to
exclude evidence of motive; to bifurcate; for additional
peremptory challenges; to allow a jury questionnaire; and
brought to the Court's attention motions drafted by the
petitioner, (File, 06-F-472.)
Counsel filed additional motions to exclude evidence of drug
use and related evidence; to preclude explanatory answers on
cross; to preclude speculative or conclusory statements; to
limit evidence of flight; to exclude any reference to
petitioner's previous criminal convictions and arrests;
moved to have the petitioner evaluated for competency and any
mental defense; and various motions in limine to bar hearsay
Heard before trial was evidence on a motion to suppress out
of court identifications made by two of the state's
witnesses from a photo array. (Pre-trial Hearing Transcript,
January 17, 2008 at 12.) Those witnesses were Jerry Allen and
James Adkins. Sean Snuffer of the Kanawha County Sheriffs
Department had prepared those lineups. (Id. at 13.)
Detective Snuffer prepared a photo lineup which included the
petitioner and five other males who matched or resembled him.
(Id. at 14.) The array was shown to James Adkins who
was hospitalized. Mr. Adkins felt he knew who had shot him.
The array was shown to Adkins. He was told to identify anyone
he knew, but also told the person who shot him may or may not
be in the array. (Id. at 15.) Detective Snuffer read
directions to Adkins which were printed on a form or on the
array itself. Other than those directions, Detective Snuffer
told the witness nothing else. (Id. at 16.) Adkins
pointed out Number 6 and said that was the person who did the
shooting. "And he also shot me in the stomach."
Adkins identified the petitioner and signed the array,
identifying photo 6 as "Little." (Id.)
Detective Snuffer prepared another array and showed it to
Jerry Allen, who was also hospitalized. (Id. at 19.)
The same procedure was used as was used with witness Adkins.
Witness Adkins identified photo number 3 as the person who
shot him, identifying number 3 as "Little."
(Id. at 20.)
Witness Adkins knew the petitioner prior to the shooting.
(Id. at 22.) Mr. Allen also knew the petitioner
before he was shot. (Id. at 23.)
Trial counsel did inquire if any of the pictures were of
"Dread". Detective Snuffer did not know because
identifiers are not attached to the photos for the array.
(Id. at 24.) Dread was identified by counsel as
having been at the scene. (Id.)
Although both witnesses had been acquainted with the
petitioner before the shooting, the witnesses were shown a
photo array to confirm, if possible, that Keith Jeffers was
the individual they knew as "Little." (Id.
at 27.) There were no other individuals involved in the
investigation who were known as "Little."
(Id.) Ultimately, the Court ruled that the witnesses
would be permitted to identify the petitioner in court.
Blake received an upsetting phone call and reported it to the
clerk. (Trial Transcript, January 21, 2008 at 31.) The Court
and counsel agreed to question her about the matter.
(Id. at 32.) Ms. Blake had received a phone call on
her cell phone on her way to Court that morning. The cell
phone is not in her name, but in her employer's name.
(Id.) A man represented himself to be an
"officer" and that Ms. Blake had driven away a
Silver Durango from a restaurant on Saturday night and that
the three people she was with had "jumped" the
caller. (Id. at 35-36.)
Blake does not own a silver Durango. The person to whom she
was talking started yelling at her. (Id. at 36.) Ms.
Blake told the Court that there is another Leah Blake who
lives in St. Albans who -was arrested for meth. (Id.
at 37.) Ms. Blake was worried about her safety, believing
that she had put that phone number on her jury questionnaire.
The number was not on that questionnaire. (Id. at
37-38.) The person had given Ms. Blake a name, but she did
not remember the name. (Id. at 40.) Upon inquiry,
Ms. Blake had no problems remaining as a potential juror.
(Id. at 41.)
Deputy Duff was employed by the Kanawha County Sheriffs
Department. (Id. at 250.) On June 6, 2006, he was
dispatched to a shooting in the Amandaville area.
(Id. at 251.) He was dispatched to an address at 111
Mary Street, which is beside 401 Riverside. (Id. at
252.) Deputy Duff met a man he knew as "Juice."
Juice was walking toward the deputy from the Riverside
residence. He was holding his stomach and bleeding from his
stomach. (Id. at 253.)
Juice answered in the affirmative when the Deputy asked him
if he had been shot. (Id.) Juice told the Deputy
that he had been shot by "Little". When pressed for
a name, Juice told the Deputy "Keith."
(Id. at 254.)
Deputy Duff saw "Nook" face down on the ground with
obvious wounds to his back and his left. (Id.)
He'd been shot along with Juice. (Id.)
Nook was drifting in and out of consciousness and
couldn't give a name of who shot him. But he said
they'd driven off in a small white car. (Id. at
paramedics told the Deputy there were three dead people in
the house. (Id.). When he entered the house, Deputy
Duff saw the dead victims and saw a bullet shell casing in
the floor. (Id. at 256.) Deputy Duff recognized the
female victim, Amanda Walker, and one of the male victims,
Dennis Lovejoy. (Id.)
When Deputy Duff walked to the back bedroom, he saw that the
whole window and frame were lying in the front yard, and it
was obvious someone had leapt from the window. (Id.
cross examination, defense counsel noted that he had a report
from Sergeant Elkins that Vincent White had been paid money
to deliver a message to a Michael Thompson and is associates.
The message was from "Drey" or "Key". The
message was, essentially to pay up or else. (Id. at
Umstot treated James Adkins on June 6, 2006. (Id. at
289.) He also treated the other gun-shot wound victim, Jerry
Allen. (Id. at 290.)
operated on James Adkins for a gunshot wound traversing the
abdomen. The wound extended from under the left side of the
rib cage through the belly button area towards the general
area of the appendix. (Id. at 292.) Mr. Adkins was
positive for cocaine and THC upon admission. (Id. at
Umstot noted that Mr. Allen had a gunshot wound to his left
arm, a couple to his buttocks and one in his lower abdomen.
(Id. at 296.) Mr. Allen needed further surgery to
correct internal bleeding. (Id. at 297.) Ml Allen
also was positive for cocaine and THC. (Id. at 299.)
Richard Ingram was the crime scene technician from the
Kanawha County Sheriffs Department. (Id. at 318.)
Officer Ingram responded to the scene, which had been secured
by other officers. The house was a one-story residence. One
enters into a living room. To the front and right of the
living room is a kitchen. To the left, down the hallway would
be living quarters. (Id. ad 321.)
Officer Ingram saw bullet casings in front of the couch in
the living, and a couple of other places. (Id. at
the dining room were three bodies, close to one another.
the dining room were bullets, casings and fragments from
bullets. (Id. at 324.)
There were bullet holes in the wall. (Id. at 325.)
of the three bullets which had passed through the wall were
found in the yard. (Id.) Mr. Ingram observed that to
the far-left side of the residence a glass had been broken
out where a person apparently jumped through it. Another
window, almost exactly opposite, had also been knocked out by
someone jumping through it. (Id. at 326.) Defense
counsel objected to the speculation regarding people going
through the windows, which was sustained. (Id. at
327.) The glass, however, was broken from the inside.
(Id. at 328.)
Ingram defined for the jury that casings are the brass part
that holds the bullet and the powder. The casings found were
Smith & Wesson .40 caliber. (Id. at 338.)
fired bullet was recovered from behind the stove in the
kitchen. (Id. at 339.) The casings found in the
living room were the same caliber. The import of that means
the same type of weapon was used. (Id. at 343.)
shooter used a semi-automatic weapon, .40 caliber. As one
shoots the gun, the bullet goes out the barrel, the casing is
automatically ejected to the side and another round goes into
the chamber. Every time one shoots, a casing is ejected.
(Id. at 344.)
Everything at the crime scene indicated that there was almost
no movement at the time of the shooting and that the bodies
were where they fell at the time of their deaths.
(Id. at 345.)
crack pipe was found outside the residence and a crack pipe
and lighter were recovered from Ms. Ingram's hands.
(Id. at 346.)
There was no evidence of a confrontation in the house.
(Id. at 347.)
Ingram collected a .40 caliber Smith and Wesson casing from
the living room which was later sent for analysis at the
State Police lab. (Id. at 362-363.) Another .40
caliber Smith and Wesson casing from the living room was also
collected and sent to the lab for analysis. (Id. at
364.) Another Smith and Wesson .40 caliber casing was found
in the living room and sent to the lab for analysis.
(Id. at 365.) Another casing, also Smith and Wesson
.40 caliber was recovered from the living room, near the
television, and sent to the lab for analysis. (Id.
at 366.) Another casing, Smith and Wesson .40 caliber was
found near the right shoulder of Mr. Lovejoy. That casing was
also analyzed by the state police lab. (Id. at 367.)
Another Smith and Wesson .40 caliber casing was recovered
from underneath Mr, Lovejoy's body. (Id. at
Additional .40 caliber Smith and Wesson casings were
recovered from the kitchen and dining area (id. at
369), a bucket in the dining area (id. at 370), a
trash can in the dining area (id. at 371), from a
stand and from a cup in the trash can. (Id.) All
were .40 caliber Smith and Wesson casings and all were
submitted to the state police lab for analysis, (Id.
Bullets were recovered from Jerry Allen (id. at
373), Dennis Lovejoy (id. at 374), the rear of the
residence in the yard (id. at 375), another bullet
from the yard (id. at 376), another bullet from the
inside of the front door (id. at 377), another
bullet from behind the stove (id. at 378), a bullet
fragment from the kitchen (id.), a copper jacket
from the kitchen (id.), and another bullet fragment
from the kitchen (id. at 379). All those were sent
to the state police lab for analysis. (Id.)
bullet fragment was recovered-from the head of Ms. Ingram at
autopsy. (Id. at 380.) A fragment was recovered from
Mr. Childress' neck. (Id.) Another bullet and
fragments were recovered from Mr. Childress. (Id. at
381.) A bullet was recovered from Mr. Lovejoy's chest
(Id.) Those items were sent to the state police lab
for analysis. (Id.)
fired bullet from the kitchen, found near Mr. Lovejoy's
shoulder was recovered and sent to the lab for analysis.
(Id. at 382-383.)
Photographs were identified by Mr. Ingram of the front of the
residence which showed a window covered up and bullet holes
near the door which were not there on June 6, 2006, the day
of the murders. (Id. at 385.) Those bullet holes
were made sometime after the examination of the crime scene.
(Id. at 386.)
Once Mr. Ingram became aware that Keith Jeffers had been
identified as a suspect, he was entered into NCIC.
(Id. at 388.)
After Jeffers was arrested in Pennsylvania, Mr. Ingram went
to process the vehicle he was in at the time of his arrest.
(Id. at 389.)
was brought to the Court's attention that a Ms. Pantoja
was apparently seen threatening another unnamed witness.
(Id. at 404.) The Court noted additionally that
there had been many younger adults in the courtroom that had
been disruptive. (Id. at 405.)
Defense counsel noted that Ms. Pantoja had been subpoenaed by
both the state and defense and that she had confronted
counsel and told them she would not testify. (Id.)
The defense had not decided whether to release her, and thus,
she was barred from the courtroom. Ms. Pantoja insisted on
coming in the courtroom, and when she was told she could not,
she left. (Id. at 406.)
Trooper Chewning testified out of sequence so he could return
to Pennsylvania. Around 10:00 p.m. on June 6, 2006 (several
hours after the murders), he received a call that there was a
disabled vehicle on Interstate 81, just north of Harrisburg.
(Id. at 420.) The driver of the vehicle was Carrie
Pauley. (Id. at 422.) When the registration on the
vehicle was checked, it was listed as a "homicide"
vehicle out of Kanawha County. What that meant was that the
vehicle was registered to a murder suspect. (Id.)
Keith Jeffers was one of two men in the back seat of the
vehicle and he was taken into custody by Trooper Chewning,
(Id. at 424.)
Without specific citation, the Court will note that a portion
of the cross-examination of Mr. Ingram was based upon what
the police did not do. Fingerprints were not taken from the
doorknob or from the shell casings until recently before
trial. (Id. at 426-428.) No fingerprints were found.
Although pressed by defense counsel, Mr. Ingram did not opine
Where the shooter had to be standing in the house.
(Id. at 432-435.)
front door of the residence was not forced. (Id. at
456.) Defense counsel pointed out that the cartridge and
bullets don't identify any individual. (Id. at
Although defense counsel cross-examined about guns found in a
locked room at the house, there was nothing disturbed in that
room. It was immaculate and had no bullet holes,
(Id. at 463.) Shell casings are not necessarily a
good source of fingerprints because heat destroys
fingerprints. (Id.) It's very rare to find
identifiable prints on a casing. The blood samples were not
submitted for DNA because the police knew the identity of the
victims. (Id. at 464.) Detective Ingram clarified
that bullet holes were found on the interior and near the
front door during his examination; those were distinct from
the bullet holes that were later found and not at the crime
scene immediately after the murders. (Id. at
to not examining footprints found in the blood, Detective
Ingram noted that the paramedics had to step in the blood to
reach the victims, (Id. at 471.) There was so much
blood on the floor mat it was difficult to move and that
anyone who was in the kitchen tracked through blood.
(Id. at 472.)
Detective Ingram did not believe either the door or the door
handle would have been the best surface for recovering
fingerprints, (Id. at 476.)
"incident" with Ms. Pantoja was investigated by the
Court, She adamantly denied threatening anyone stating that
she started to make a derogatory name, but did not. She
apologized to the police officer. (Id. at 481-482.)
She was instructed to stay out of the courtroom and to say
nothing. (Id. at 483-484.) Ms. Pantoja stated she
had not discussed the case, but had said hello to witnesses
she knew. (Id. at 484.)
Detective Snuffer of the Sheriffs Department also responded
to the homicide scene at about 4:02 a.m. on June 6, 2006.
(Id. at 492.) He interviewed Jessica Shamblin. The
information from Ms, Shamblin led the detective to start
looking for Carrie Pauley in reference to her boyfriend,
Keith Jeffers, also known as Little. (Id.)
Detective Snuffer went to a residence in Alum Creek looking
for Jeffers and to check on Carrie Pauley. (Id. at
493.) Jeffers was a suspect in the murders. (Id.)
Carrie Pauley was at the residence in Alum Creek.
(Id.) She had been in Amandaville earlier.
(Id.) Ms. Pauley was not forthcoming with her
boyfriend's name until after the police found a car
title. (Id. at 496.) Ms. Pauley was informed that
her boyfriend was a suspect in three homicides and that he
had shot two other people. (Id. at 497.)
Detective Snuffer had. prepared the photo arrays shown to the
surviving victims, Adkins and Allen. (Id. at 498.)
prepared the array including the petitioner's photograph
and other pictures that resembled him as much as possible.
(Id. at 499.) The array was shown to James Adkins at
CAMC where he was being treated. (Id.) Mr. Adkins
was informed that the suspect might or might not be in the
lineup. Detective-Snuffer did not suggest to Mr. Adkins that
he pick out anyone from the lineup. (Id. at 500.)
Adkins picked out photograph number 6 as the person who shot
him. That photograph was of Jeffers. (Id. at 501.)
Mr. Adkins marked the photo array by writing ".. .number
six is Little, the person responsible for the shooting."
Detective Snuffer prepared another array for Mr. Allen.
(Id.) The petitioner's photograph was not placed
in the number 6 spot. The detective used similar looking
individuals. (Id. at 502.)
array was shown to Jerry Alien in the Intensive Care unit at
CAMC. Detective Snuffer told Mr. Allen the person who shot
him might or might not be in the array. Mr. Allen knew one of
the other individuals in the array, but pointed to photograph
3 as the person who shot him. Photograph 3 was Jeffers.
(Id. at 503.)
Both Allen and Adkins knew Keith Jeffers before they were
shown the line-up. (Id. at 516.)
Jessica Shamblin admitted she was addicted to drugs on June
6, 2006. (Id. at 522.) She knew Carrie Pauley. She
knew the petitioner, by his nickname Little. She knew
"Juice" Adkins. She knew Jerry Allen as
“Nook." She also knew Amanda Ingram, Dennis
Lovejoy and Mr. Childress. (Id. at 522-523.)
June 5, 2006, the evening before the murders, Ms, Shamblin
met up with Carrie Pauley. (Id. at 523.) Ms.
Shamblin was getting high at Kanawha Terrace Apartments. Also
present were Carrie, "Dred" and Cierra.
(Id. at 524, ) Dred and Cierra were not smoking
crack, everyone else was. Ms. Shamblin and Carrie left to go
get powder cocaine. (Id. at 525.) They went in
Carrie's car to Valley View Drive, the home of Reba
Parsons. (Id. at 527.)
Shamblin went into a residence to buy cocaine. Carrie stayed
in the car. Later, Ms. Shamblin got Carrie to come into the
house because she(Carrie) had the money to purchase cocaine.
Little, that is Keith Jeffers, came into the house and pulled
a pistol on Ms. Shamblin telling her to get Carrie ...