Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

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

The Charleston Gazette filed an action against the superintendent of the state police under the West Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) seeking the disclosure of public records from the state police concerning its internal review of complaints made against state police officers. The circuit court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding that the information sought by the Gazette was statutorily exempt from disclosure. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in determining that none of the information sought by the Gazette was subject to disclosure. Remanded to the circuit court to review the disputed documents and to determine what information was subject to disclosure under the FOIA. View "Charleston Gazette v. Smithers" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree robbery and conspiracy and sentenced to serve fifty-two to sixty years in prison. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress. The Supreme Court issued a Memorandum Decision holding Defendant's appeal in abeyance to permit the circuit court to enter an order on the issues of whether the Drug Enforcement administration (DEA) properly issued an administrative subpoena to obtain Defendant's cellular phone records and whether the DEA properly released that information with members of the police department. On remand, the circuit court entered an amended order denying Defendant's motion to suppress. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's amended order denying Defendant's motion to suppress, holding (1) the police department acted improperly toward the DEA in obtaining Defendant's phone records; (2) Defendant had no constitutionally protected legitimate expectation of privacy in his phone records, and thus, the exclusionary rule did not apply in this case; and (3) Defendant did not have standing to question the validity of the subpoena in a state court proceeding.View "State v. Clark" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder. Petitioner appealed his conviction, but the Supreme Court refused the request to hear the appeal. Petitioner subsequently filed a request for habeas corpus relief, alleging that both his trial counsel and his appellate counsel were ineffective. The circuit court denied the requested habeas relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in finding that trial counsel effectively represented Petitioner; and (2) the circuit court did not err in denying habeas corpus relief on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. View "State ex rel. Adkins v. Dingus" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and first degree arson involving a fire that killed his girlfriend. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility for parole on the murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding, inter alia, that (1) no error was committed in the way the preliminary hearing was conducted; (2) the circuit court did not err in striking a witness' testimony; (3) the circuit court did not err in denying a mistrial after a witness' testimony was found to be incorrect; (4) the circuit court did not err in allowing into evidence Defendant's statements to law enforcement that were given without Miranda warnings; (4) the circuit court did not err in failing to dismiss the indictment because of spoliation of evidence; and (5) Petitioner's decision to testify on his on behalf was not coerced by the trial court.View "State v. Davis" on Justia Law

Petitioners in these two consolidated appeals were convicted of sexual-related offenses. Both Petitioners were sentenced pursuant to section W. Va. Code 62-12-26, which provides for extended supervision of certain sex offenders. In each case, the lower courts modified Petitioners' supervised release and imposed additional sanctions pursuant to section 62-12-26(g)(3). The primary issue in the appeals was the constitutionality of the portion of section 62-12-26 that permits the revocation of supervised release and additional incarceration when a sex offender violates a condition of supervised release. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' orders in each case, holding (1) section 62-12-26(g)(3) does not violate constitutional principles of due process, equal protection, and double jeopardy; and (2) Petitioners' post-revocation sanctions were not constitutionally disproportionate to their underlying convictions. View "State v. Hargus" on Justia Law

Respondent was arrested for driving under the influence after his vehicle was stopped by a police officer responding to a telephone call and information obtained from an individual claiming she had observed the vehicle driving erratically. The Division of Motor Vehicles issued an order administratively revoking Respondent’s license. The Office of Administrative Hearings reversed Respondent’s license revocation, finding that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the officers had an articulable reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop, and therefore the initial traffic stop was invalid and the resulting license revocation was improper. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that both the initial stop and the arrest were valid. Remanded for an order reinstating Respondent’s administrative license revocation. View "Dale v. Ciccone" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of sexual abuse by a parent, guardian, custodian or person in a position of trust to a child and sentenced to twenty years in the penitentiary. Two years later, Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction habeas corpus relief, arguing that his former defense counsel was ineffective for failing to submit proper jury instructions on whether Petitioner was a “person in a position of trust” as to the victim and whether the victim was under Petitioner’s “care, custody, or control” at the time of the sexual encounter. The circuit court granted Petitioner’s petition. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the failure to offer the instructions did not constitute deficient performance by counsel. View "Ballard v. Thomas" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs requested from the Acting Tax Commissioner a copy of the Computer-Assisted Mass Appraisal (CAMA) files for all real property in the state. The Tax Commissioner denied the request for the CAMA files, claiming that it was not custodian of the files. Plaintiffs filed an action seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the Commissioner and the Kanawha County Assessor (Respondents), concluding that the CAMA files were exempt from production under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Commissioner was the custodian of the subject files; and (2) the circuit court erred in determining that the CAMA files were categorically exempt from disclosure under FOIA’s exemption for information of a personal nature. Remanded for submission of a Vaughn index and further findings. View "Hurlbert v. Matkovich" on Justia Law