The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a lower court's denial of a habeas corpus petition in *Richardson v. Frame*, rejecting claims of ineffective assistance of counsel brought by convicted robber Raymond Andrew Richardson. The published opinion, decided Jan. 20, 2026, represents the conclusion of an appeal that originated from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.
Richardson, who was convicted of first-degree robbery, sought federal habeas relief claiming his trial counsel provided constitutionally deficient representation. Specifically, Richardson argued that his attorney failed to object to a significant variance between the charges in his indictment and the prosecution's theory presented at trial.
According to court documents, the indictment charged Richardson with accomplishing the robbery by threatening victim Denise Cool with deadly force. However, at trial, the state argued that Richardson committed the robbery by physically assaulting Cool rather than threatening her with deadly force. Richardson contended this variance constituted a fundamental change in the nature of the charges that his counsel should have challenged.
The case originated in West Virginia state court, where Richardson was convicted of first-degree robbery. After exhausting his state court appeals, Richardson filed a federal habeas corpus petition in 2020 in the Southern District of West Virginia, challenging his conviction on ineffective assistance of counsel grounds.
Senior District Judge John T. Copenhaver Jr. denied Richardson's petition, finding that his claims did not warrant federal habeas relief. Richardson then appealed to the Fourth Circuit, which heard oral arguments on Dec. 9, 2025.
In the Fourth Circuit opinion written by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, the three-judge panel unanimously affirmed the district court's decision. Judges Robert B. King and Roger L. Gregory joined Wilkinson's opinion, which rejected Richardson's ineffective assistance claims.
The court's reasoning focused on the legal standards governing both ineffective assistance of counsel claims and variances between indictments and trial evidence. To succeed on an ineffective assistance claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense.
Federal habeas corpus petitions challenging state court convictions face particularly high legal hurdles under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The law requires federal courts to defer to state court decisions unless they involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law or were based on unreasonable determinations of fact.
Richardson was represented on appeal by Jonathan D. Byrne from the Office of the Federal Public Defender in Charleston, West Virginia. Federal Public Defender Wesley P. Page also appeared on Richardson's brief. The state of West Virginia was represented by Holly J. Wilson from the state Attorney General's office, with Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, Solicitor General Michael R. Williams, Assistant Attorney General Spencer J. Davenport, and Legal Fellow Darius J. Iraj also appearing on the state's brief.
The published nature of the Fourth Circuit's opinion suggests the court viewed the case as establishing or clarifying important legal principles regarding ineffective assistance claims in the context of indictment variances. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited in future cases within the Fourth Circuit, which covers Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Habeas corpus petitions serve as an important safeguard in the criminal justice system, allowing convicted defendants to challenge their convictions in federal court when they believe their constitutional rights were violated during state court proceedings. However, these petitions face strict procedural requirements and substantive legal standards designed to balance the need for finality in criminal convictions with protection of constitutional rights.
The case highlights ongoing tensions in criminal law between ensuring defendants receive adequate legal representation and maintaining the integrity of the charging process. Questions about variances between indictments and trial evidence frequently arise in criminal cases, as prosecutors may adjust their theories based on evidence developed during investigation or trial preparation.
Richardson's conviction and the subsequent denial of his habeas petition mean his first-degree robbery conviction stands. The case does not indicate whether Richardson plans to pursue further appeals, though his options would be limited to seeking Supreme Court review, which the high court grants in only a small fraction of cases.
The Fourth Circuit's decision reinforces the high bar federal courts apply when reviewing state criminal convictions through habeas corpus proceedings, particularly when claims involve attorney performance that may have fallen short of ideal but did not necessarily violate constitutional standards.