Ensuring the Right to Appeal: Resentencing When Counsel Fails to File a Requested Appeal

Introduction

State of West Virginia v. Aron Freeland arose from Monongalia County Circuit Court proceedings in which the defendant, Aron Freeland, pleaded guilty under an Alford/Kennedy framework to first-degree sexual abuse and abduction. After sentencing, Freeland sought to renew his right to appeal by filing a motion for resentencing, alleging ineffective assistance and a breakdown in communication with his appointed counsel. The circuit court denied relief. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia considered two core issues:

Whether the circuit court’s order contained sufficient findings and conclusions to permit meaningful appellate review.
Whether the court abused its discretion by denying resentencing when counsel allegedly failed to file a requested appeal.

The State, represented by the Attorney General’s Office, defended the denial, emphasizing proper habeas procedures and the merits of Freeland’s plea. Freeland, represented by appointed counsel, argued that constitutional protections of the right to appeal required a limited hearing and resentencing if he had indeed asked his lawyer to file an appeal within the four-month window.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Appeals vacated the circuit court’s June 22, 2023 order and remanded with directions to hold a limited hearing. The narrow question the lower court must address on remand is whether Freeland did, in fact, request his counsel to perfect a direct appeal within the allotted four-month period. If Freeland made such a request and counsel failed to act, the court must resentence him for the sole purpose of revitalizing his statutory appeal period. The Court rejected the circuit court’s focus on the potential merits of Freeland’s ineffective-assistance claims and reaffirmed that no showing of likely appellate success is required when counsel ignores a client’s timely appeal request.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

State v. Redman (213 W. Va. 175, 578 S.E.2d 369 (2003)) – Confirmed that a circuit court must include findings and conclusions when ruling from the bench, but held that incorporation by reference satisfies that requirement.
Peguero v. United States (526 U.S. 23 (1999)) – Established the principle that, when counsel fails to file a requested appeal, a defendant is entitled to the same remedy as if the appeal had been timely filed, without needing to demonstrate that the appeal would have merit.
State v. Michael M. (No. 20-0496, 2021 WL 4936480 (W. Va. Oct. 1, 2021)) – Reiterated the constitutional right to appeal cannot be extinguished by counsel’s inaction and noted that delay may affect relief but not the right itself.
Carter v. Bordenkircher (159 W. Va. 717, 226 S.E.2d 711 (1976)) – Held that resentencing for the sole purpose of renewing the appellate window is the usual remedy when a counsel ignores a defendant’s appeal request.
Harrison v. Straughn, State v. Higgins, and State ex rel. Lewis v. Ballard – Memorandum decisions illustrating that, when the record is unclear whether an appeal was requested, courts must hold evidentiary hearings to determine if the defendant truly asked counsel to appeal.

Legal Reasoning

The Court applied the two-pronged standard of review: factual findings under clearly erroneous review and the ultimate disposition under an abuse of discretion standard, with legal questions reviewed de novo. The majority first determined the record already contained sufficient findings and conclusions to allow meaningful appellate review, distinguishing Redman only to confirm adequacy.

Turning to the merits of Freeland’s resentencing request, the Court explained that the proper inquiry is not the voluntariness of the plea or the feasibility of an ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal, but simply whether the defendant asked counsel to file an appeal within the four-month period. Drawing on Peguero and subsequent West Virginia decisions, the Court held that once such a request is shown, resentencing for appeal must be granted automatically, with no requirement to demonstrate the appeal’s likelihood of success.

The circuit court had instead focused on the potential merit of Freeland’s claims and directed him toward a habeas corpus action. The Supreme Court criticized that approach as improper: “the constitutional right to appeal cannot be destroyed by counsel’s inaction,” and the question of merit is irrelevant to the initial entitlement of resentencing.

Impact

This decision clarifies and reiterates West Virginia’s procedural protection of the right to appeal:

Trial courts must hold a limited hearing when a defendant alleges counsel failed to file a requested appeal, focusing only on whether the request was made.
If the request is established, resentencing for the purpose of renewing the appeal window is mandatory, regardless of the appeal’s prospects.
Courts should avoid conflating motions for resentencing with habeas proceedings or inquiries into plea voluntariness when the sole relief sought is an opportunity to appeal.

Going forward, defense counsel will be on notice to confirm and document any client request for appeal, and circuit courts will need to make clear factual findings when ruling on such motions. This strengthens defendants’ appellate rights and reduces confusion over the proper remedy when counsel fails to act.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Alford/Kennedy Plea: A guilty plea entered while maintaining actual innocence, permitted when a defendant intelligently concludes a plea is in their best interest and the evidence could support a conviction.
Resentencing for Appeal: A procedural remedy that voids the original sentence solely to restart the statutory clock for perfecting a direct appeal.
Standards of Review:
- Clearly Erroneous – A deferential review of factual findings.
- Abuse of Discretion – A deferential review of procedural and discretionary rulings.
- De Novo – A fresh, non-deferential review of pure questions of law.
Habeas Corpus vs. Direct Appeal: A habeas corpus petition challenges the legality of detention after appellate review, whereas a direct appeal is the first opportunity to challenge trial errors.
Conflict of Interest in Appeal Requests: If counsel’s own potential liability (e.g., ineffective assistance) conflicts with filing an appeal, this does not excuse the obligation to follow the client’s instruction to appeal.

Conclusion

State of West Virginia v. Freeland reaffirms the bedrock principle that a criminal defendant’s right to appeal cannot be negated by counsel’s failure to file a timely notice. By directing a limited remand to determine only whether Freeland asked his lawyer to file an appeal—and by requiring resentencing if so—the Court has provided clear, practicable guidance to trial courts across the state. This memorandum decision preserves the integrity of the appellate process, mandates precise factual findings, and ensures that no defendant is deprived of appellate review through attorney inaction.