Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court sentencing Petitioner to ten to twenty-five years' imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to second-degree sexual assault, holding that the circuit court's failure to explicitly discuss the mandatory mitigating circumstances listed in W. Va. Code 61-11-23(c) before ordering the final sentence was not prejudicial.On appeal, Petitioner argued that the circuit court failed to consider the "mitigating circumstances" set forth in section 61-11-23(c) and that his sentence was constitutionally disproportionate. The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence, holding (1) Petitioner's substantial rights were not affected by the circuit court's failure to acknowledge and consider the statutory mitigating circumstances; and (2) Petitioner's argument that his sentence was constitutionally disproportionate due to his age and mental capacity was unavailing. View "State v. Hall" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's conviction of attempt to possess pseudoephedrine in an altered state and remanded this case for further proceedings, holding that the circuit court plainly erred by finding a factual basis for Defendant's no contest plea.Defendant was charged in an indictment with possession of pseudoephedrine in an altered state, a felony. Defendant pled nolo contendere to attempt to possess pseudoephedrine in an altered state and was sentenced to one to three years' imprisonment. Defendant appealed, challenging the circuit court's denial of his motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's conviction, holding that the circuit court erred when it found that a factual basis existed for a plea to attempt to commit possession of pseudoephedrine in an altered state where the only evidence was Defendant's possession of completed methamphetamine. View "State v. Finley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court denying Petitioner's requested writ of mandamus against Respondent, the Commissioner of the West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation, holding that the circuit court erred in denying a writ of mandamus.In his self-represented petition for a writ of mandamus Petitioner asserted that the Commissioner had a duty to "develop a policy directive and/or operational procedure" that was in compliance with W. Va. Code 15A-4-17(i), which was passed during the 2018 legislative session. The circuit court denied the requested writ. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) section 15A-4-17(i)(2) imposed upon the Commissioner a clear legal duty to adopt a written policy effectuating the purposes of "this subsection," which included the entirety of subsection (i); and (2) Petitioner had no other adequate remedy at law. View "Freeland v. Marshall" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's conviction of attempt to possess pseudoephedrine in an altered state and remanded this case for further proceedings, holding that the circuit court plainly erred by finding a factual basis for Defendant's no contest plea.Defendant was charged in an indictment with possession of pseudoephedrine in an altered state, a felony. Defendant pled nolo contendere to attempt to possess pseudoephedrine in an altered state and was sentenced to one to three years' imprisonment. Defendant appealed, challenging the circuit court's denial of his motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's conviction, holding that the circuit court erred when it found that a factual basis existed for a plea to attempt to commit possession of pseudoephedrine in an altered state where the only evidence was Defendant's possession of completed methamphetamine. View "State v. Finley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered a certified question that a jury's failure unanimously to decide the recommendation of mercy does not allow the circuit court to impose a sentence of life imprisonment required for a conviction of first-degree murder pursuant to W. Va. Code 61-2-2.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree and conspiracy to commit murder. After the mercy phase of the bifurcated trial the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict as to mercy. The court ultimately discharged the jury and certified the question at issue to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court answered the question in the negative, holding (1) in a first-degree murder trial, the jury deciding whether the defendant receives mercy must reach a unanimous verdict; and (2) if the jury cannot reach a unanimous verdict then the trial court must declare a mistrial and impanel a new jury to determine whether Defendant should receive mercy. View "State v. Reeder" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part Defendant's conviction of attempted murder in the second degree and other crimes, holding that the principles of double jeopardy were violated by Defendant's convictions for brandishing a deadly weapon and wanton endangerment involving Deputy Coty Pierson.Defendant was convicted of, among other crimes, two counts of wanton endangerment, one involving Deputy Pierson and the other involving Jeffrey Barnhouse, and brandishing a deadly weapon. The Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded the case for resentencing, holding (1) the jury verdict finding Defendant guilty of malicious assault on a law enforcement officer should not be set aside; (2) it was plain error for Defendant to have been convicted and sentenced for brandishing and wanton endangerment of Deputy Pierson because those crimes were lesser included offenses of the offense of malicious assault on a law enforcement officer; and (3) the trial court did not favor the State during Defendant's trial. View "State v. Ward" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the sentencing Petitioner consecutively to a definite term of forty years' imprisonment for first-degree robbery, one to ten years' imprisonment for grand larceny, one to fifteen years' imprisonment for burglary, and one to five years in prison for conspiracy to commit first-degree robbery, conspiracy to commit grand larceny, and conspiracy to commit burglary, holding that there was no error.On appeal, Petitioner argued, among other things, that the circuit court committed reversible error during sentencing by admitting testimonial evidence of her prior criminal charge over her objection because the State presented no evidence establishing how the charge related to her current case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court abused its discretion in admitting Petitioner's prior criminal charge under W. Va. R. Evid. 404(b), and Petitioner did not open the door to the evidence; but (2) the prior-act evidence, while inadmissible, had no prejudicial effect on the outcome of the case and did not warrant a new trial. View "State v. Kessler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's four felony convictions stemming from an incident resulting in a shooting death, holding that the admission of certain evidence prejudiced Defendant, requiring remand for a new trial.At the time of the underlying shooting Defendant was on parole from a previous felony conviction for voluntary manslaughter. Therefore, the charges against him included the status offense of being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, Defendant argued that the circuit court erred by refusing to accept his stipulation to his prior felony conviction on the grounds that Defendant offered it during the trial because, in fact, Defendant offered the evidence after the court refused the prosecutor's earlier attempts to obtain the stipulation. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed, holding that because the court's refusal permitted the State to admit evidence of the name and nature of Defendant's prior, similar offense, and the admission of this evidence prejudiced Defendant, the circuit court abused its discretion and unfairly prejudiced Defendant by refusing his offered stipulation. View "State v. Jackson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court granting in part and denying in part Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that there was no error in the circuit court's partial denial of habeas relief.After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of first-degree robbery and malicious assault. Petitioner's later-filed petition for writ of habeas corpus asserted sex general grounds for relief with various bases. The habeas corpus court granted Petitioner's request for credit for time served on home confinement pending appeal but otherwise denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the habeas corpus court's denial of relief. View "Sowards v. Ames" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of second-degree murder and sentencing him to a determinate term of forty years following a jury trial, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court did not err in not granting Defendant's motion for a mistrial because of two instances in which the State made references to Defendant's pre-trial silence after finding that the references did not violate Defendant's right against self-incrimination because any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) there was no error in the jury instructions; (3) Defendant failed to show that there were errors in the empanelment of the jury; and (4) there was no cumulative error in this matter. View "State v. Hoard" on Justia Law