State of West Virginia v. Melvin Romeo

Citation: Not availableDocket: 12-1497

Court: West Virginia Supreme Court; March 6, 2014; West Virginia; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Melvin Romeo appeals the Circuit Court of Mercer County's August 20, 2012, order sentencing him to two consecutive one-to-three-year terms in prison after pleading guilty to two unrelated felony offenses. In case number 12-F-216, he was indicted for obtaining money by false pretenses and a worthless check, while in case number 12-F-267, he faced a charge of attempting to commit obtaining money by false pretenses. Romeo pleaded guilty to lesser-included offenses related to these charges. Notably, he did not object during the plea and sentencing hearing or seek to dismiss the charges.

The guilty plea in case 12-F-216 involved a worthless check delivered in 2007, while the second case involved an attempt to commit fraud in 2008. The court sentenced him without any substantial legal questions or prejudicial errors identified. After sentencing, Romeo filed a pro se motion for additional credit for time served in Virginia, claiming he was entitled to credit from May to September 2011, due to an Interstate Agreement on Detainers. The circuit court denied this motion, stating no legal provision supports credit for time served in another state for unrelated charges.

On October 22, 2012, the petitioner filed a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus, seeking to compel the circuit court to vacate his August 20, 2012, sentence based on an alleged breach of a prior plea agreement by the State. The petitioner claimed that he was indicted for a worthless check charge that was covered by a plea agreement from January 17, 2008, which stipulated that the State would not prosecute him for any acts known or alleged in a related revocation petition. The petitioner contended that the conduct leading to his guilty plea in 2012 was the same as that in the 2008 agreement, despite the indictment referencing an event on October 22, 2007, rather than October 18, 2007.

The Court declined to docket the mandamus petition, suggesting that the issues were more suitable for an appeal. The petitioner then raised three assignments of error on appeal. First, he argued that the circuit court erred in allowing prosecution for the worthless check charge, asserting it violated the prior plea agreement. However, the court found that the October 22, 2007, offense was not the same as the earlier charge included in the plea agreement. 

In his second assignment of error, the petitioner argued that the circuit court violated the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IADA) in case number 12-F-267 by not acting within the 180-day rule after he requested disposition of the case. The IADA mandates that a prisoner must be tried within 180 days of such a request, although continuances may be granted for good cause shown. The excerpt highlights the procedural and jurisdictional issues raised by the petitioner in his appeal.

A prisoner's request for final disposition of untried charges operates as a request for all related indictments or complaints where detainers have been lodged. The custodian of the prisoner must notify relevant prosecuting authorities and courts of this request, providing copies of the notice and request. If the trial on these charges does not occur before the prisoner returns to the original place of imprisonment, the charges are dismissed with prejudice. The petitioner contends that his request to the Mercer County Prosecuting Attorney while incarcerated in Virginia triggered the 180-day rule for disposition. However, the court has previously established that a guilty plea waives the rights under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IADA), including the right to dismissal upon violations. The petitioner argues that his situation is distinguishable since he entered his plea on the same day he was charged; however, the court finds no violation of the 180-day rule, which only begins when the request is delivered to the relevant authorities. The request was received by the Mercer County Circuit Court on May 23, 2011, and the 180-day rule was triggered then. The Mercer County Prosecuting Attorney later indicated he would not extradite the petitioner, who was released from Virginia custody on October 5, 2011. Thus, the prosecutor was not obligated to adhere to the 180-day rule. Additionally, the petitioner sought credit for time served in Virginia, but the court clarified that credit is only given for time served on offenses for which a conviction exists, and the time served in Virginia was unrelated to his West Virginia conviction. The court affirmed the dismissal of the petitioner's claims.