Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The two petitioners in this case were juveniles who were adjudicated juvenile delinquents for sexual assault. At issue before the circuit court was whether the juveniles should be required to register as lifetime sexual offenders upon reaching the age twenty-one. The circuit court certified two questions to the Supreme Court regarding the sex offender statutes in relation to juvenile offenders. The Supreme Court answered (1) a juvenile adjudicated of certain acts of delinquency is not required to register under the sex offender registration statute; and (2) the nature of the crimes underlying the two juvenile delinquency petitions - first and second degree sexual assault - allows for the public disclosure of the names of the juveniles. View "State v. J.E." on Justia Law

Petitioner Rashaun Boyd and Petitioner Christopher Wyche were prosecuted in a joint trial. Boyd was convicted of attempted murder, wanton endangerment, and possession of a firearm. Wyche was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, wanton endangerment, and possession of a firearm. This appeal followed the denial of post-trial motions. The Supreme Court affirmed the final judgments in these consolidated appeals, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to sustain Petitioners’ convictions; (2) contrary to Boyd’s argument, the Court’s standard of review set out in Syllabus point three of State v. Guthrie need not be overruled; (3) the trial court did not commit reversible error in refusing to sever the cases for trial; (4) the trial court’s evidentiary rulings challenged on appeal did not warrant reversal of Wyche’s convictions; (5) the prosecutor did not engage in impermissible misconduct; and (6) the trial court did not err in allowing the State to use a peremptory strike to remove the only juror of “color.” View "State v. Boyd" on Justia Law

Petitioner was indicted on one count of malicious assault. After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of the misdemeanor offense of assault and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. Petitioner appealed, arguing that his conviction must be set aside on the grounds that he was not charged with the offense for which he was convicted because the crime of misdemeanor assault is not a lesser included offense of malicious assault. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) misdemeanor assault is a lesser included offense of malicious assault; and (2) the evidence submitted at trial supported an instruction on assault. View "State v. Henning" on Justia Law

In 1976, Petitioner was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment. The life sentence included the element of mercy, and Petitioner was released on parole in 1986. While on parole, Petitioner was convicted in Pennsylvania of murder. After Petitioner completed his Pennsylvania sentence, his parole was revoked, and Petitioner’s life sentence, with mercy, was reimposed. Thereafter, Petitioner was informed that he would be ineligible for parole. Petitioner filed this habeas petition, alleging that the lack of a sentencing record regarding his armed robbery conviction violated the requirements of State v. Houston and Pratt v. Holland and that the West Virginia Parole Board violated his right to due process by denying a hearing before the Parole Board prior to the Board’s determination of his ineligibility for parole. The habeas court concluded that the sentence was fair and imposed the life sentence, with mercy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the habeas court did not include an impermissible factor as a reason for Petitioner’s life sentence; and (2) the denial of a hearing before the Parole Board in which to participate in the comparison of the two murder statutes did not violate Petitioner’s right to due process of law. View "Pratt v. Ballard" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted on eight charges relating to the alleged sexual abuse of his eight-year-old daughter S.F. S.F. received treatment from the Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR), which maintained files to which the prosecutor had access. Defendant requested S.F.’s DHHR files on the ground that the prosecutor was required to turn over potentially exculpatory evidence in its possession. After an in camera review, the circuit court granted Defendant’s lawyer access to the DHHR files, finding that Defendant had a constitutional right to review the DHHR’s files on S.F. on the grounds that the files contained exculpatory information that was material to the defense. The prosecutor then sought a writ of prohibition against the enforcement of the circuit court’s order. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding (1) the circuit court did not err by finding that Defendant had a constitutional right to review the DHHR’s files on S.F.; and (2) the circuit court followed the correct procedure in determining that these files could be reviewed by Defendant’s lawyer. View "State ex rel. Lorenzetti v. Honorable David H. Sanders" on Justia Law

Petitioner pled guilty to the misdemeanor crime of sexual abuse in the third degree and was sentenced to the maximum statutory term of ninety days in jail. Petitioner was also required to register as a sexual offender for life. After serving his sentence, Petitioner pled guilty to failing to provide a change in his sex offender registration information. The circuit court sentenced Petitioner to an indeterminate term of one to five years, then suspended the sentence and placed him on probation. Thereafter, Petitioner twice pled guilty to failing to report a change in his information. Petitioner was ultimately sentenced to a term of not less than ten nor more than twenty-five years of incarceration. Petitioner later filed a motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to W. Va. R. Crim. P. 35(b) arguing that his age at the time he committed the misdemeanor third degree sexual abuse and his actions thereafter warranted a lesser sentence. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in refusing to afford Petitioner mercy. View "State v. Collins" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first degree murder with a recommendation of mercy and conspiracy to commit burglary. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from a residence with the property owners’ consent; (2) the trial court did not err by denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from Defendant’s residence; (3) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for a change of venue; and (4) Defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right not to wear jail attire during jury voir dire. View "State v. Payne" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, concealment of a deceased human body, and other offenses relating to the death of her twenty-six-day-old infant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err by admitting Defendant’s prior bad acts under W. Va. R. Evid. 404(b); (2) Defendant’s argument that her conviction for concealment of a human body and her related conspiracy conviction should be set aside because she took affirmative action within the meaning of W. Va. Code 61-2-5a was without merit; (3) the trial court did not violate Defendant’s constitutional protection against double jeopardy by not merging the child neglect resulting in death and child neglect creating a substantial risk of death counts into a single offense; (4) Defendant’s remaining assignments of error were without merit; and (5) there was no error or abuse of discretion in the court’s sentencing order. View "State v. McDaniel" on Justia Law

Petitioner pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit the destruction of property and attempt to commit grand larceny. Petitioner was sentenced to consecutive terms of incarceration of one to five years and one to three years, respectively. Petitioner later filed a motion to reduce his sentence under W. Va. R. Civ. P. 35(b). The circuit court denied Petitioner’s Rule 35(b) motion. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the circuit court abused its discretion in not reducing his sentence by awarding him probation or concurrent sentencing and by sentencing him on his felony conspiracy conviction when the evidence indicated that his crime was a misdemeanor. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not commit reversible error in refusing to award either concurrent sentencing or probation; and (2) Petitioner’s assignment of error challenging his felony conspiracy conviction exceeded the scope of Rule 35(b). View "State v. Marcum" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of two counts of felony sexual assault and two counts of felony sexual abuse by a custodian. During the trial, the child victim began testifying in-court but became unresponsive when the State questioned her about Petitioner’s alleged sexual abuse. Thereafter, the trial court sua sponte ordered that the victim testify by live closed-circuit television. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred by ordering the victim to testify by live closed-circuit television. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court’s failure to follow the mandatory procedural safeguards set forth in W.Va. Code 62-2B01 et seq. did not contribute to the verdict obtained. View "State v. David K." on Justia Law