Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part the decision of the circuit court denying Petitioner's motion for a new trial, holding that the circuit court's jury instruction on the crime of kidnapping was incomplete.A jury found Petitioner guilty of kidnapping, malicious assault, commission of an assault during the commission of a felony, and domestic battery. Petitioner moved for a new trial, arguing that the circuit court incorrectly instructed the jury on kidnapping because the court erroneously omitted from its instruction that "transport" is an element of kidnapping under W. Va. Code 61-14a-2(a)(2). The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's order denying Petitioner's motion for a new trial on kidnapping and commission of an assault during the commission of a felony and remanded the case for entry of an order granting a new trial to Petitioner, holding that the circuit court's instruction on kidnapping was fundamental error. View "State v. Woodrum" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioners' requested writ seeking to prohibit the circuit court from enforcing an order disqualifying Petitioners' joint counsel from representing Petitioners, holding that the circuit court did not clearly err when it applied Rule 44(c) of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure to disqualify Christian Riddell from representing Petitioners, jointly, at this stage of the proceedings.Petitioners June Yurish, Kristin Douty, and Christina Lester, were each charged with failure to report. All three charges arose from the same set of facts. Christian Riddell appeared in court as counsel for each petitioner. The State moved to disqualify Riddell from appearing in Petitioners' cases, arguing that the joint representation created a current conflict among Petitioners' interests and threatened future conflicts that would jeopardize the integrity of the proceedings. The circuit court granted the State's motion. The Supreme Court denied Petitioners' requested writ, holding that the Petitioners did not show that the circuit court's order disqualifying Riddell from jointly representing them in their criminal cases was either a clear error of law or a flagrant abuse of the circuit court's discretion. View "State ex rel. Yurish v. Honorable Laura Faircloth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the circuit court granting the State's motion to dismiss the indictment against Defendant without prejudice and denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment with prejudice, holding that the circuit court properly dismissed the indictment without prejudice.Defendant was charged with two counts of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and two counts of conspiracy to commit said offense. One day before trial, the State filed a motion to dismiss the indictment without prejudice on the ground that the State was unable to prosecute Defendant without testimony from his codefendant, who would not be released from her incarceration in Ohio until the next year. The circuit court granted the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) while the State did not act with great dispatch in securing the codefendant's presence or her testimony at Defendant's trial, the State did not act in bad faith; and (2) the circuit court's decision granting the State's motion to dismiss without prejudice was based upon facts and circumstances known to the court and with due consideration for the rights of all parties. View "State v. Holden" on Justia Law

In this original jurisdiction action in mandamus the Supreme Court reaffirmed that an indigent inmate who has entered a plea of guilty is entitled to one free copy of transcripts and other matters of record that are not protected from disclosure for purposes of preparing a post conviction petition for writ of habeas corpus and that discovery may not be used to obtain court records for purposes of preparing a post conviction petition for writ of habeas corpus.Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to certain crimes. As a self-represented litigant, Petitioner petitioned the circuit court for the "production of documents" to file his habeas corpus petition in which he intended to claim that his guilty plea was not voluntarily and intelligently made. The presiding judge asserted that Petitioner was not entitled to discovery but may be entitled to certain documents. The Supreme Court granted, as moulded, a writ of mandamus requested by Petitioner, holding that, to the extent Petitioner was an indigent inmate who had never received a copy of a transcript of the proceedings against him or other matters of record, he was entitled to those records with the exception of any material that was subject to protection from disclosure. View "State ex rel. Tackett vs. Honorable Darl W. Poling" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the sentencing order of the circuit court finding that Petitioner's offense of simple battery as a lesser included offense of sexual assault in the second degree was sexually motivated, holding that the circuit court neither abused its discretion nor erred when it found that Petitioner's offense was sexually motivated.The jury found Petitioner not guilty of sexual assault in the second degree, not guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree, and guilty of battery. At sentencing, the circuit court found beyond a reasonable doubt that Petitioner's battery was sexually motivated and directed Petitioner to register as a sex offender. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit judge did not abuse her discretion finding that Petitioner's actions were sexually motivated. View "State v. Kennedy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court giving Petitioner credit for twelve days of time served toward the sentence he received for his felony conviction although Petitioner spent additional time in confinement for other charges that were dismissed in the universal plea agreement, holding that to grant Petitioner additional credit for time served would do little more than reward Petitioner for habitual criminal behavior.Petitioner was charged with several crimes and agreed to resolve the pending charges against him in a universal plea agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, Petitioner agreed to plea guilty to the charge of felony carrying a concealed firearm by a prohibited person. In exchange, the State agreed to drop the remaining charges. After he was sentenced, Petitioner argued that, in addition to the twelve days of credit for time served he was granted, he was constitutionally entitled to credit for time served while he was incarcerated for charges that were resolved in the universal plea agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner's circumstances implicated neither double jeopardy nor equal protection of the law such that additional credit for time served was constitutionally mandated. View "State v. Taylor" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Petitioner's petition for habeas corpus, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief.Petitioner was convicted of second-degree murder, death of a child by a guardian or custodian, and child abuse resulting in injury. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences. Petitioner then filed a self-represented petition for writ of habeas court, alleging, primarily, that his counsel provided him with ineffective assistance. The circuit court ultimately denied the habeas corpus petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in finding that Defendant failed to show prejudice under the second prong of Strickland/Miller; and (2) there were no errors in the trial court's proceedings that would warrant application of the cumulative doctrine to the facts of this case. View "Meadows v. Mutter" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court denying Petitioner's private citizen application to present a complaint to the grand jury, holding that a circuit court may refuse a private citizen's application to present a complaint to the grand jury if it determines that such application constitutes an abuse of process, but the circuit court in this case failed to set forth any findings of fact or conclusions of law when it denied Petitioner's application.Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and burglary. After seeking both state and federal habeas relief Petitioner filed an application to present a complaint to the grand jury. In his application, Petitioner asserted that during the grand jury proceedings that resulted in his indictments, a police officer perjured himself and the prosecuting attorney suborned perjury. The circuit court denied the application. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, because the circuit court's denial of Petitioner's application did not include any findings of fact or conclusions of law, it was necessary to remand this matter to the circuit court for further proceedings. View "Dreyfuse, In re Application to Present Complaint to the Grand Jury" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Petitioners' Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law, Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial, and Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment, as provided for by the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, holding that the circuit court did not err.Respondent filed a complaint alleging that Petitioners, two correctional officers, used excessive force against him. The jury found that Petitioners used excessive force on Respondent and committed the civil tort of battery on Respondent. The jury award compensatory damages of $0 and punitive damages of $4,500. Petitioners filed a Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law and motions pursuant to Rules 59(a) and (e) for a new trial and/or to alter or amend the judgment, arguing that there was no reasonable relationship between the compensatory damages and punitive damages award. The circuit court denied the motions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in (1) allowing punitive damages to be recovered by Respondent without an accompanying award of compensatory or nominal damages; and (2) failing to apply the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. 1997e, to Petitioners. View "Lunsford v. Shy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court sentencing Petitioner to two terms of one to five years of imprisonment in connection with his conviction of two counts of delivery of a controlled substance, holding that the circuit court did not err in not suppressing evidence of an audio/video recording of one of the two drug transactions.On appeal, Petitioner argued that the circuit court erred in refusing to suppress evidence related to one of the drug transactions on the grounds that the evidence was obtained as a result of a recorded transaction within his home without an electronic intercept order issued prior to the transaction. Petitioner argued that this conduct violated State v. Mullens, 650 S.E.2d 169 (W. Va. 2007), and was not in compliance with the Electronic Interception of Conduct or Oral Communications in the Home Act. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that exigent circumstances prevented law enforcement officers from obtaining an order authorizing the use of an audio/video recorder in Petitioner's home. View "State v. Howells" on Justia Law