Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of robbery in the first degree, nighttime burglary, and conspiracy. At issue in this case were two plea deals offered by the State. The first was a pre-trial offer and the second was a post-conviction offer regarding a recidivist action. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective by giving erroneous advice before trial and by failing adequately to prepare him for his trial testimony. After an omnibus hearing, the circuit court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court correctly determined that Petitioner could not establish a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different. View "Raines v. Ballard" on Justia Law

The State filed an information charging Caleb Toparis with the misdemeanor offenses of domestic assault and domestic battery. Toparis filed a motion to dismiss the information, asserting that his right to a speedy trial had been violated because he had not been tried on the charges within one year of the execution of the warrant. The circuit court granted the motion to dismiss. The State sought a writ of prohibition to prohibit the circuit court from dismissing the two misdemeanor charges against Toparis, contending that the circuit court erred in finding that Toparis’s right to a speedy trial had been violated. The Supreme Court granted the requested writ, holding that Toparis’s right to a speedy trial was not violated in this case. View "State ex rel. Sorsaia v. Hon. Stowers" on Justia Law

Donal Bowers was charged with alleged sex crimes against an eleven-year-old girl. The assistant prosecutor filed a motion in limine to obtain an advance ruling on the admissibility of the diary of the alleged victim. The circuit court concluded that the statements within the diary were admissible under hearsay rules. The court, however, excluded a certain two-page entry, reasoning that the statements, though relevant to the prosecution’s case and probative of the crimes of which Bowers was charged, presented an unacceptable risk of improperly inflaming the jury. Furthermore, the circuit court ruled that photocopies of the diary entries and illustrations would be substituted in place of the diary itself. The prosecutor filed this petition for extraordinary relief challenging the exclusion ruling and the substitution ruling. The Supreme Court granted the requested writ as mounded, holding (1) the circuit court manifestly erred in excluding the substantive two-page entry at issue; but (2) the circuit court’s ruling relating to the manner in which the diary should be presented to the jury was not manifestly in error. View "State ex rel. Games-Neely v. Hon. Gray Silver III" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of sexual assault in the second degree and two counts of sexual assault in the third degree. Defendant was effectively sentenced to not less than ten nor more than twenty-five years' imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in (1) allowing the State to present an expert witness on the issue of Gamma-Hydroxybutyrate intoxication; (2) not allowing Defendant to introduce evidence or question a State witness on what activity took place immediately prior to the victim going into the house where she was allegedly assaulted; (3) allowing the jury to consider both second degree sexual assault and third degree sexual assault based on the evidence; and (4) allowing the bailiff to have a conversation with a juror about a potential witness. View "State v. Wakefield" on Justia Law

Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of robbery and two counts of sexual assault. Petitioner’s first petition for writ of habeas corpus was unsuccessful. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a second petition for a writ of habeas corpus based on the results of new DNA testing that excluded Petitioner as either a primary or secondary sperm contributor. The circuit court denied relief. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the State violated Brady v. Maryland by failing to disclose an exculpatory DNA report it possessed more than six weeks prior to the final plea hearing. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the State’s failure to disclose favorable DNA test results obtained six weeks prior to Petitioner’s plea hearing violated Petitioner’s due process rights, and the error was prejudicial. View "Buffey v. Ballard" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder without a recommendation of mercy, attempted murder, and malicious wounding. The Supreme Court affirmed with one exception, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence in the record to support Petitioner’s convictions; (2) the circuit court did not admit unfairly prejudicial evidence during the mercy phase of Defendant’s bifurcated trial; (3) Petitioner failed to prove misconduct with regard to an alleged pre-deliberation conversation among jurors during trial; but (4) the circuit court abused its discretion by unduly restricting Petitioner’s opportunity to attempt to prove his claim that a juror communicated with the surviving victim during trial recesses. Remanded for an additional post-trial hearing on the single issue of juror misconduct. View "State v. Jenner" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of fleeing in a vehicle, possession with intent to deliver a schedule II controlled substance (cocaine), and possession with intent to deliver a schedule II controlled substance (methamphetamine). Prior to trial, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence a police officer discovered upon searching Defendant’s vehicle, arguing that no probable cause existed for either the traffic stop or the subsequent search. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s convictions and resultant sentences and remanded, holding that the warrantless search of Defendant’s vehicle was unlawful, and therefore, the circuit court erred by not suppressing the evidence found during that search. View "State v. Noel" on Justia Law

A criminal complaint was filed in magistrate court charging Respondent with conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance, which is a felony. Before the preliminary hearing commenced, the State filed a motion with the magistrate court seeking to dismiss the criminal complaint without prejudice. The magistrate court granted the motion to dismiss the criminal complaint. Respondent subsequently filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking the circuit court to require the magistrate to hold a preliminary hearing for Respondent. The circuit court ruled that Respondent was entitled to a preliminary hearing provided the hearing could be held prior to the return of an indictment against her. The court reasoned that a magistrate may not dismiss a felony charge before holding a preliminary hearing where the State might seek an indictment for the alleged criminal conduct. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, under the facts of this case, Respondent did not have a clear legal right to a preliminary hearing, and the magistrate had no legal duty to provide such a hearing. View "State v. Davis" on Justia Law

Petitioner pleaded guilty to burglary and was sentenced to an indeterminate term of one to fifteen years. As relevant to this appeal, the circuit court ordered Petitioner to pay restitution in the amount of $5,478.93 to State Farm Insurance Company within one year of his release from incarceration. Petitioner appealed, arguing that he should not be required to pay restitution to State Farm because it was not a “direct victim” of his criminal act. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order, holding (1) pursuant to W. Va. Code 61-11A-4(e), a court may order a defendant to make restitution to an insurance company to the extent that the insurance company has compensated a victim for loss attributable to the defendant’s criminal conduct; and (2) therefore, the circuit court in this case did not err in ordering Petitioner to make restitution to State Farm. View "State v. Wasson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of sexual assault in the first degree and sexual abuse by a parent or guardian. After Petitioner was sentenced, his trial attorney committed suicide. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus, alleging, inter alia, ineffective assistance of counsel and the introduction of “faulty scientific evidence” by the State. The circuit court denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying the petition without holding an evidentiary hearing; and (2) the trial court did not err in finding that Petitioner had not been denied the effective assistance of counsel. View "Tex S. v. Pszczolokowski" on Justia Law