Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Defendant was found guilty of two counts of attempted murder in the first degree, three counts of malicious assault, and other offenses arising from Defendant’s acts of deliberately shooting a man twice in the back and, in the process, accidentally shooting an eight-year-old girl. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding, primarily, that the circuit court erred in allowing a witness to make a blanket assertion of the Fifth Amendment without requiring the witness invoke his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination in front of the jury, thus violating Defendant’s constitutional right to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, but the error was harmless. View "State v. Herbert" on Justia Law

In 1992, Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with the recommendation of mercy. In 1995, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which the circuit court denied. In 2012, Petitioner filed a second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. In 2013, Petitioner was paroled. The circuit court dismissed the habeas petition as moot because Petitioner no longer satisfied the statutory requirement of being incarcerated and because Petitioner received the relief he sought - release from custody. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, as a parolee, Petitioner was no longer incarcerated, and therefore, he was no entitled to seek post-conviction habeas relief. View "Cline v. Mirandy" on Justia Law

Petitioner, the Commissioner of the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles, revoked Respondent’s drivers license for driving under the influence of alcohol. Following an administrative hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), the chief hearing examiner affirmed the Commissioner’s order of revocation. The circuit court reversed the revocation ordered by the OAH, finding as fact that Respondent requested a blood test and was not provided one in violation of her constitutional and statutory rights. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Respondent did not satisfy her burden of showing that she properly asserted her statutory right to a blood test, and the circuit court’s order, to the extent that it made findings of fact and conclusions to the contrary, was in error. View "Dale v. Painter" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of second degree murder. Petitioner was sentenced to a determinate term of forty years in prison. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in the manner in which it conducted a suppression hearing concerning his videotaped statement and erred in finding that a statement he made was voluntarily given to the police. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Petitioner’s challenges to the suppression hearing failed; and (2) under the circumstances, the circuit court correctly determined that Petitioner’s statement was voluntary and in admitting the statement into evidence. View "State v. Marcum" on Justia Law

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the West Virginia Lawyer Disciplinary Board (collectively, the ODC) issued an informal advisory opinion that determined (1) the Attorney General did not have authority to prosecute criminal cases outside of the limited prosecutorial authority granted by W. Va. Code 5-3-2, and (2) the Rules of Professional Conduct would be violated if the Attorney General prosecuted assisted county prosecutors in certain criminal prosecutions. The Attorney General subsequently filed the instant petition for a writ of prohibition to prevent ODC from enforcing the informal advisory opinion, contending that county prosecutors have authority to request the Attorney General to assist with criminal prosecutions and that the office of the Attorney General has independent common law authority to prosecute criminal cases. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding (1) county prosecutors do not have statutory authority to appoint the Attorney General as a special prosecutor; and (2) under the state Constitution and statutory law, the common law criminal prosecutorial authority of the Attorney General was abolished. View "State ex rel. Morrisey v. W. Va. Office of Disciplinary Counsel" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled guilty to two charges under an indictment - obtaining money by false pretenses and fraudulent scheme - and six counts in an information. Defendant later filed a motion to correct his sentence under W. Va. R. Crim. P. 35(a), contending that his two felony convictions under the indictment violated the prohibition against double jeopardy. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that double jeopardy principles do not preclude a conviction for a fraudulent scheme offense in addition to a conviction for any other offense arising out of the same transaction or occurrence. View "State v. Coles" on Justia Law

On August 5, 2014, the Mingo County Democratic Executive Committee nominated a candidate to fill a vacancy created by the former Family Court Judge for the Eighth Family Circuit. The Mingo County Commission was requested to place the candidate on the ballot for the general election scheduled for November 4, 2014. Seeking compliance with the state’s election laws, the Secretary of State ordered the Ballot Commissioners of Mingo County to remove from the 2014 general election ballot any and all references to an election to fill an unexpired term of judge for the Eighth Family Court Circuit. The Ballot Commissioners did not respond, and the Secretary of State sought extraordinary relief from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted the requested writ of mandamus, holding that the Ballot Commissioners lacked the authority to sua sponte place a candidate for a judicial office on the ballot. View "State ex rel. Tennant v. Ballot Comm’rs of Mingo County" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of one count of wanton endangerment and sentenced to a five-year term of imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err by denying Petitioner’s motion to suppress evidence taken from his residence because, under the circumstances, the warrantless search of the residence was allowed under the emergency doctrine exception, and even in the absence of exigent circumstances, the police officers were entitled to conduct a protective search; and (2) the circuit court did not err in allowing the jury to hear testimony regarding the out-of-court identification of Petitioner made by the victim. View "State v. Kimble" on Justia Law

Petitioner was a police officer, and later police chief, employed by the City of Montgomery. In 2011, Petitioner’s employment was terminated. Petitioner filed a complaint against the City and the Mayor (collectively, Respondents), asserting that he was discharged without a pre-termination hearing in violation of W. Va. Code 8-14A-1 and in contravention of public policy because he refused to place a GPS tracking device in another officer’s police car. The circuit court granted Respondents’ motion to dismiss, concluding (1) Petitioner was not entitled to a pre-termination hearing; and (2) Respondents were entitled to qualified immunity because Respondents’ alleged conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) the circuit court properly ruled that Petitioner was not entitled to a pre-termination hearing; but (2) Petitioner’s complaint alleged sufficient facts to support a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of a substantial public policy, and therefore, Respondents were not entitled to qualified immunity from Petitioner’s cause of action for wrongful discharge.View "Brown v. City of Montgomery" on Justia Law

The West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) revoked the driver’s licenses of Respondents following their arrests for driving under the influence of alcohol. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) reversed the revocation of Respondents’ driver’s licenses, concluding that the evidence did not establish that Respondents had been lawfully arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. The circuit court denied the DMV’s petitions for judicial review. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for reinstatement of the respective DMV orders revoking Respondents’ driver’s licenses, holding that Respondents were lawfully arrested, and the OAH’s findings to the contrary were clearly wrong.View "Dale v. Odum" on Justia Law