Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the circuit court denying Defendant's' motion to dismiss the indictment in his case, holding that West Virginia's felon in possession of a firearm statute is not void for vagueness.Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to the charge of felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant later appealed the order of the circuit court denying his motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing (1) the felon in possession of a firearm statute, W. Va. Code 61-7-7(b), is void for vagueness; or (2) in the alternative, the predicate statute that served as the basis for his conviction was not a crime of violence against the person of another. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 61-7-7(b) is constitutional; and (2) a prior felony conviction for wanton endangerment in the first degree is a crime of violence against the person of another within the meaning of section 61-7-7(b). View "State v. Mills" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court affirming Defendant's conviction for one count of domestic battery, holding that law enforcement officers' entry into Defendant's home was reasonable under the emergency doctrine exception to the warrant requirement.After a magistrate court jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of domestic battery of his wife and sentenced to ten days in jail. The circuit court affirmed, holding that the officers' entry into Defendant's home fell under the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment and that, therefore, the officers acted reasonably. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the warrantless entry into Defendant's home fell within the emergency doctrine exception to the warrant requirement; and (2) Defendant was not entitled to reversal on his remaining allegations of error. View "State v. Rexrode" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed an order of the circuit court sentencing Defendant for one count of assault in the commission of a felony and one count of burglary, holding that Defendant waived his sole assignment of error on appeal.On appeal, Defendant argued that the circuit court erred during his sentencing hearing in considering a previously expunged charge in its decision to incarcerate him instead of placing him on probation. In response, the State argued that Defendant failed timely to object in the proceeding below. The Supreme Court agreed with the State, holding that that Defendant waived his assignment of error. View "State v. Bleck" on Justia Law

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