Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for one count of delivery of a controlled substance, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.After Defendant was convicted, a trial was conducted pursuant to the procedures contained in W. Va. Code 61-11-19, and Defendant was found to have been previously convicted of two prior felony offenses. The circuit court then sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment on the predicate delivery of heroin charge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; (2) a criminal defendant who has been twice convicted and sentenced for crimes punishable by confinement in a penitentiary but has not discharged such prior penitentiary sentences and is subsequently convicted of a third crimes punishable by confinement in a penitentiary is subject to an enhanced sentence under the recidivist statute, W. Va. Code 61-11-18 and -19; and (3) the life sentence under the recidivist statute did not violate proportionality principles. View "State v. Norwood" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding that Petitioner was not denied due process or effective assistance of trial counsel when he did not receive a sex offender evaluation pursuant to W.Va. Code 62-12-2(e).Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of sexual abuse by a parent. Petitioner later filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging due process violations and ineffective assistance of counsel based on his allegation that neither his attorney nor the circuit court informed him that the State would have provided a sex offender evaluation at no cost to him. The circuit court denied habeas relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to relief because he failed to prove that he was deprived of due process by his failure to undergo a sex offender evaluation or that the outcome of his sentencing hearing would have been different so as to establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. View "Christopher H. v. Martin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Petitioner's second amended motion for writ of habeas corpus, holding that the circuit court did not err.Petitioner pled guilty by information to first-degree murder. Petitioner later filed his second amended habeas petition asserting (1) his guilty plea by information was illegal under the West Virginia Constitution and Rule 7 of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure because he faced a life sentence; (2) his guilty plea was involuntary; and (3) his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) while the guilty plea by information did not comport with Rule 7, Petitioner waived his argument as to that irregularity when he waived his constitutional right to an indictment; (2) Petitioner's guilty plea was voluntary; and (3) Petitioner failed to establish deficient performance by trial counsel. View "Montgomery v. Ballard" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Petitioner's conviction for attempted first-degree murder under a felony-murder theory ("attempted felony-murder"), holding that there is no cognizable crime of attempted felony-murder in West Virginia.Petitioner was indicted on eight counts, including attempting first-degree murder. The day before the trial, the State indicated that it would pursue the theory of attempted felony-murder against Petitioner. The circuit court allowed the State to proceed with attempted first-degree-felony-murder. After hearing all of the evidence presented at trial, the jury convicted Petitioner on the charge of attempted felony-murder. On appeal, Petitioner argued that the crime of attempted felony-murder does not exist in the state. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed Petitioner's conviction, holding that attempted felony-murder is not a cognizable crime under West Virginia law because the crime of attempt requires as one of its elements the specific intent to commit the underlying substantive crime and the only way that the transferred intent of felony-murder is achieved is if an actual homicide occurs. View "State v. Sanders" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner's felony conviction for two counts of delivery of a controlled substance but reversed the circuit court's order sentencing him to life in prison with mercy in accordance with the recidivist statute, W. Va. Code 61-11-18, holding that the sentence violated the proportionality clause of the state Constitution.The circuit court imposed a recidivist life sentence based upon Petitioner's conviction for delivery of a controlled substance and two prior felony convictions for unlawful wounding and conspiracy to commit the felony of transferring stolen property. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but reversed the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to convict Petitioner of two counts of delivery of a controlled substance; but (2) the imposition of a life sentence with mercy was unwarranted and an abuse of discretion. View "State v. Lane" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court granting relief to the State in a writ of prohibition proceeding, holding that the circuit court applied the correct statute in order to grant relief to the State.The order of the circuit court at issue prohibited enforcement of a magistrate's order that granted deferred adjudication to Petitioner in a criminal prosecution for driving under the influence (DUI), second offense. The State filed a petition for a writ of prohibition asking the circuit court to prohibit enforcement of the magistrate's order. The circuit court found that the State was entitled to the writ because W. Va. Code 17C-5-2(r) and 17C-5-2b do not permit suspension of a sentence for a DUI offense or participation in the deferral program by defendants charged with second offense DUI. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a person charged with DUI under W. Va. Code 17C, 5 may only seek deferred adjudication as permitted by section 17C-5-2b and that the deferred adjudication allowed under W. Va. Code 61-11-22a is not available to a person charged with a DUI offense. View "State v. Honorable Debra Ditto" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied the writ of prohibition sought by Petitioner to have the Supreme Court disqualify the Honorable Kurt W. Hall, Judge of the Circuit Court of Upshur County, from presiding over his criminal trial, holding that Judge Hall was not required to recuse himself because the prosecutor intended to call the court clerk as a witness.Petitioner was charged with the felony offense of failure to appear arising from Petitioner’s failure to make an appearance at a pretrial hearing in a previous felony criminal proceeding in which he was the defendant. In preparation for the failure to appear charge, the prosecutor filed a witness list that included the clerk of the circuit court. The prosecutor intended the clerk of court to authenticate records from the prior criminal case. Petitioner moved to recuse Judge Hall because the clerk was going to testify at the trial. Judge Hall denied the motion. Petitioner then filed the instant petition challenging the denial of his recusal motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Judge Hall was not required to recuse himself under the circumstances of this case; and (2) there is no per se disqualification of a presiding judge when the clerk of court is called to testify for the prosecution’s case-in-chief. View "State ex rel. Lewis v. Honorable Kurt W. Hall" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court sentencing Petitioner for his convictions of first-degree murder, holding a hostage to file, and two counts of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Court held (1) Petitioner’s failure to object to the admission of toxicology evidence at trial precluded the Court from addressing the matter in this appeal; (2) the trial court did not err in admitting certain evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence; (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s motion to sever the hostage count from the remaining charges; (4) an alleged severance error did not meet the standard for invoking the plain error rule; (5) the trial court did not commit reversible error in responding to jury questions in Petitioner’s absence and the absence of his counsel; and (6) the evidence was sufficient to find Petitioner guilty as to first-degree murder and delivering a controlled substance. View "State v. Sites" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted the writ of prohibition sought by Petitioner, the prosecuting attorney of Jackson County, to prohibit the Circuit Court of Jackson County from enforcing its order suppressing all evidence of text messages between the defendant in the underlying criminal case and an accountant for the company from which she allegedly embezzled $306,000, holding that the circuit court committed a clear error of law in prohibiting the admission at trial of the text messages.The circuit court found that W. Va. R. Evid. 408 precluded the admission of the text messages. On appeal, the State argued that although Rule 408 may be applicable in criminal proceedings, the text messages were not statements made for civil settlement purposes, and therefore, they should have been admitted at trial. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that because the text messages were not exchanged in the context of civil settlement negotiations, the circuit court erred in denying admission of the text messages. View "State ex rel. Franklin v. Honorable R. Craig Tatterson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court sentencing Defendant to a term of incarceration of one to three years for his conviction of threatening to commit a terrorist act, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Court held (1) the circuit court did not err by denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment against him based upon misleading evidence submitted to the grand jury because Defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of willful, intentional fraud; and (2) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s conviction, and therefore, the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant’s post-trial motions seeking a judgment of acquittal or, in the alternative, a new trial. View "State v. Back" on Justia Law