Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of fleeing in a vehicle, possession with intent to deliver a schedule II controlled substance (cocaine), and possession with intent to deliver a schedule II controlled substance (methamphetamine). Prior to trial, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence a police officer discovered upon searching Defendant’s vehicle, arguing that no probable cause existed for either the traffic stop or the subsequent search. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s convictions and resultant sentences and remanded, holding that the warrantless search of Defendant’s vehicle was unlawful, and therefore, the circuit court erred by not suppressing the evidence found during that search. View "State v. Noel" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony murder and conspiracy to commit burglary. Defendant was sentenced to life with mercy on his conviction of felony murder. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s statements to a police officer in a police cruiser on the way to jail were voluntarily made and thus properly admitted into evidence; (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a witness’s hearsay statements, as the statements were not testimonial and were admissible under a firmly rooted hearsay exception; (3) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting phone call statements Defendant made from jail, which were recorded by jail authorities; (4) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting either exemplar shoes purchased by the State as a demonstrative aid or an investigator’s opinion testimony concerning the shoes; and (5) the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the convictions. View "State v. Bouie" on Justia Law

Defendant entered an Alford plea of guilty to unlawful assault. Defendant was subsequently notified that he would be processed for deportation to Jamaica because of his felony conviction. When Defendant was discharged from his sentence he was turned over to the federal government for deportation proceedings. Defendant filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, alleging that his trial counsel was deficient for failing to inform him that his guilty plea could result in his being deported. The circuit court denied relief, concluding (1) the writ of error coram nobis did not exist in West Virginia, (2) a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not a recognized ground for relief under the writ, and (3) Defendant failed to show that his counsel did not inform him of the deportation consequences of his guilty plea. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) in West Virginia, the common law writ of error coram nobis is available in criminal proceedings; and (2) courts permit a constitutional legal error claim to be brought under the writ of error coram nobis so long as the framework adopted in this opinion for asserting a constitutional legal error is followed. Remanded for the circuit court to apply the test to the facts of this case. View "State v. Hutton" on Justia Law

Petitioner pled guilty to the willful and knowing violation of the terms of a domestic protective order. After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of burglary by entering without breaking, abduction with the intent to defile, and second degree sexual assault. Prior to sentencing, Petitioner was found guilty of recidivism. The Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner’s convictions and attendant sentencing, holding (1) Petitioner’s convictions of abduction with intent to defile and second degree sexual assault did not violate Petitioner’s constitutional right against double jeopardy; (2) the State’s evidence was sufficient to convict Petitioner of the crimes of burglary and second degree sexual assault; (3) the trial court correctly instructed the jury on the elements of abduction with intent to defile; and (4) the trial court did not commit prejudicial error related to Petitioner’s recidivist conviction and sentencing. View "State v. Lewis" on Justia Law

Respondent was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and refused to submit to a secondary breath test. Respondent’s driver’s license was subsequently revoked by the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles for both DUI and the refusal to submit to the designated chemical test. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) rescinded the driver’s license revocation on the grounds that (1) Respondent was misled to believe that he had a choice as to whether he wanted to take a breath test or a blood test, and therefore, revocation for refusing the secondary chemical test was inappropriate; and (2) Respondent was effectively denied his right to obtain an independent blood test. The circuit court upheld the OAH’s order. The Supreme Court found that Respondent’s license revocations for refusal to submit to the secondary breath test were proper but his license revocations for DUI were erroneous, holding (1) the lower tribunals erroneously concluded that Respondent had a rational basis for perceiving that he had a choice between the breath test and the blood test, and therefore, revocation for refusing the secondary chemical test was appropriate; and (2) Respondent was denied his statutory and due process rights to have his blood tested independently. View "Reed v. Hall" on Justia Law

Elizabeth Shanton was indicted in a fifty-four count indictment connected to her use of a purchasing card (P-card) issued pursuant to West Virginia’s Purchasing Card Program. The circuit court dismissed fifty-three counts, each of which alleged that Shanton used the P-card in violation of W. Va. code 12-3-10b. The circuit court determined that the inclusion of these counts in the indictment violated principles of double jeopardy because (1) each swipe of the P-Card was part of a continuing offense, and therefore, Shanton could only be charged with one violation of section 12-3-10b; and (2) the elements of the crime described in the fifty-three dismissed counts overlapped completely with the elements of the remaining count. The State sought a writ of prohibition to prohibit the circuit court from enforcing its order dismissing the fifty-three counts. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court erred by (i) collapsing counts 2 through 54 into a single count, thereby effectively dismissing all but one of those counts, and (ii) dismissing the condensed count, thereby dismissing all counts in the indictment alleging violations of section 12-3-10b; and (2) the State was entitled to the writ it sought. View "State ex rel. Lorenzetti v. Hon. Sanders" on Justia Law

Respondent owned the mineral rights to a certain parcel of land. When the Division of Highways (DOH) began construction of a highway through the land owned by the surface owner, the DOH excavated approximately 237,187 tons of limestone from the property. Respondent filed a mandamus action against DOH seeking to force DOH to institute a condemnation proceeding for the limestone removed from her mineral reservation in the land. The DOH filed this condemnation action, and the condemnation commission returned a verdict favorable to DOH. Respondent subsequently demanded a jury trial. Based on the jury’s findings, the trial court awarded Respondent $941,304. DOH appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in its judgment. View "W. Va. Dep’t of Transp. v. Newton" on Justia Law

Prior to his termination, Petitioner was employed by Respondent, a tin plate manufacturer, as a technician operator. After his termination, Petitioner and his wife (Petitioners) filed this action seeking damages for retaliatory discharge and loss of consortium, alleging that Petitioner was discharged for reporting violations of a permit issued under the West Virginia Water Pollution Control Act (WPCA) and making complaints to Respondent about those permit violations. Respondents removed the case to federal court on grounds of diversity. The federal district court then certified a question to the West Virginia supreme Court, which answered the question as follows: An employee who alleges that he was discharged for reporting violations of a permit issued under authority of the WPCA and making complaints to his employer about those permit violations has established the predicate substantial public policy required to prima facie prove that the employer’s motivation for the discharge was the contravention of public policy. View "Frohnapfel v. Arcelormittal USA LLC" on Justia Law

After a jury-waived trial, Petitioner was found guilty of battery. The court found that the battery was sexually motivated and ordered Petitioner to register as a sex offender. The Supreme Court affirmed the battery conviction but reversed the finding that the offense was sexually motivated, holding (1) Petitioner’s due process rights were violated by the State’s failure to provide pretrial notice of its intent to seek a finding of sexual motivation, and the trial court’s finding of sexual motivation and concomitant registration requirements constituted plain error requiring reversal; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the conclusion that Petitioner committed battery. View "State v. Seen" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Respondent was convicted of one felony count of abduction with intent to defile and one misdemeanor count of battery. Respondent later filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, asserting that his right to a fair trial was violated because he was briefly placed in handcuffs in view of some members of the jury. The circuit court agreed, granted the writ, and vacated Respondent’s convictions. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Respondent being handcuffed in view of “at least some of the jurors” for a brief period of time was not sufficient to establish reversible error, nor grounds for a mistrial. View "Ballard v. Meckling" on Justia Law