Right to Resentencing for Appeal When Counsel Fails to File: Hearing Requirement Clarified

Introduction

In State of West Virginia v. Aron Freeland, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia addressed a defendant’s motion for resentencing to revive his statutory appeal period after his counsel failed to file a direct appeal. Aron Freeland pled guilty—via Alford/Kennedy pleas—to first-degree sexual abuse and abduction in March 2022. Six months later, he moved the Monongalia County Circuit Court to be resentenced “for purposes of appeal,” alleging ineffective assistance and conflicts by his prior counsel. The circuit court denied relief, focusing instead on the merits of any prospective appeal. Freeland appealed that denial. The Supreme Court vacated the denial and remanded, holding that when counsel fails to file a requested appeal, the court must first hold a limited hearing to determine whether the defendant did in fact ask counsel to perfect an appeal within the four-month window, and if so, grant resentencing to restore the appeal right.

Summary of the Judgment

On May 1, 2025, the Supreme Court of Appeals issued a memorandum decision. It:

Vacated the circuit court’s June 22, 2023 order denying Freeland’s resentencing motion;
Directed the circuit court to hold a limited evidentiary hearing on whether Freeland asked counsel to file an appeal within the four-month appeal period (pursuant to Rule 5(f), W. Va. R. App. P., and W. Va. Code § 58-5-4);
Ordered that if Freeland did make such a request, the court must resentence him solely to restore his procedural opportunity to appeal;
Reaffirmed that a defendant entitled to an appeal cannot lose that right through counsel’s inaction, nor wholly by the defendant’s delay in pointing it out, although delay may affect relief.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) and Kennedy v. Frazier, 178 W. Va. 10, 357 S.E.2d 43 (1987): Recognized that a defendant may enter a guilty plea without admitting factual guilt when it serves his interests.
Walker v. West Virginia Ethics Commission, 201 W. Va. 108, 492 S.E.2d 167 (1997): Established the standard of review—abuse of discretion for final orders, clearly erroneous for facts, de novo for legal questions.
State v. Meadows, 231 W. Va. 10, 743 S.E.2d 318 (2013): Confirmed de novo review of legal issues in sentencing and post-conviction matters.
State v. Redman, 213 W. Va. 175, 578 S.E.2d 369 (2003): Held that findings of fact and conclusions of law are prerequisites for meaningful appellate review but that incorporation by reference of prior findings can suffice.
Peguero v. United States, 526 U.S. 23 (1999): Supreme Court recognized that when counsel fails to perfect a defendant’s requested appeal, prejudice need not be shown and the remedy is reinstatement of the appeal right.
Carter v. Bordenkircher, 159 W. Va. 717, 226 S.E.2d 711 (1976): Directed that resentencing to renew appeal time is the usual remedy for denial of the right to appeal.
Recent memorandum decisions—Michael M. (2021), Higgins (2020), Lewis v. Ballard (2013), Harrison v. Straughn (2021)—consistently require a hearing when a defendant alleges counsel failed to file a requested direct appeal.

Legal Reasoning

The Court identified a two-step inquiry for motions to resentence for appeal purposes when counsel’s inaction is alleged:

Did the defendant request that counsel file a direct appeal within the applicable period? This fact controls entitlement to relief, irrespective of the potential merits of the appeal.
If so, then the defendant must be resentenced solely to restart the four-month appeal clock; if not, no resentencing is required.

The circuit court erred by neglecting the threshold question—whether Freeland ever directed counsel to file the appeal—and instead delved into speculation about the appeal’s merits and the wisdom of raising an ineffective assistance claim on direct review. The Supreme Court stressed that preserving the procedural right to appeal is paramount and cannot be excised by counsel’s neglect.

Impact

This decision reinforces and clarifies the procedural safeguards surrounding a defendant’s right to a direct appeal in West Virginia:

Defendants are entitled to a fact-finding hearing on the singular question of whether they asked counsel to file a direct appeal within the four-month timeframe.
Circuit courts must not substitute their judgment on appealability or the merits of ineffective assistance claims for the threshold inquiry.
The remedy for a proven failure to perfect a requested appeal remains resentencing to renew the appeal clock, preserving the defendant’s procedural rights without reopening guilt or sentencing merits.
Trial courts and defense counsel must diligently advise clients of appeal rights and document any requests so as to avoid the necessity of subsequent evidentiary proceedings.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Alford/Kennedy Pleas: A defendant pleads guilty while maintaining innocence, acknowledging that the prosecution’s evidence could likely lead to conviction.
Memorandum Decision: A shorter appellate ruling that applies established law to the facts without publishing a full opinion.
Abuse of Discretion vs. Clear Error vs. De Novo:
- Abuse of Discretion: Review of discretionary rulings (e.g., post-sentencing motions).
- Clearly Erroneous: Review of factual determinations.
- De Novo: Review of purely legal questions.
Habeas Corpus vs. Direct Appeal: A direct appeal challenges trial errors within the prescribed appeal period; a habeas proceeding addresses constitutional violations (e.g., ineffective assistance) outside that window.
Four-Month Appeal Period: Under Rule 5(f), W. Va. R. App. P., and W. Va. Code § 58-5-4, a defendant has four months from sentencing to perfect an appeal.

Conclusion

State v. Freeland establishes a critical procedural rule: when counsel fails to file a direct appeal that the defendant requested, the trial court must first hold a focused evidentiary hearing on whether such a request was made within the four-month appeal period. If the defendant did make the request, the court must resentence solely to restore the appeal deadline. This ensures the constitutional right to appeal cannot be extinguished by counsel’s inaction or an absence of contemporaneous recordkeeping. Future cases will rely on this clear two-step framework to protect the procedural rights of criminal defendants in West Virginia.