Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Defendant entered an Alford plea of guilty to unlawful assault. Defendant was subsequently notified that he would be processed for deportation to Jamaica because of his felony conviction. When Defendant was discharged from his sentence he was turned over to the federal government for deportation proceedings. Defendant filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, alleging that his trial counsel was deficient for failing to inform him that his guilty plea could result in his being deported. The circuit court denied relief, concluding (1) the writ of error coram nobis did not exist in West Virginia, (2) a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not a recognized ground for relief under the writ, and (3) Defendant failed to show that his counsel did not inform him of the deportation consequences of his guilty plea. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) in West Virginia, the common law writ of error coram nobis is available in criminal proceedings; and (2) courts permit a constitutional legal error claim to be brought under the writ of error coram nobis so long as the framework adopted in this opinion for asserting a constitutional legal error is followed. Remanded for the circuit court to apply the test to the facts of this case. View "State v. Hutton" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Derek S. was convicted of eighty-one counts of sexual offenses involving a minor female child. The circuit court granted the post-trial motion of Derek S. for a new trial based upon the trial court’s failure to strike a juror for cause. The prosecuting attorney sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the enforcement of the order granting Derek S. a new trial. The Supreme Court granted the requested writ of prohibition, holding that the circuit court erred in finding that the juror should have been removed from the jury panel for cause, and the error resulted in the State being deprived of a valid conviction. View "State ex rel. Parker v. Hon. Thomas H. Keadle" on Justia Law

Petitioner pled guilty to the willful and knowing violation of the terms of a domestic protective order. After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of burglary by entering without breaking, abduction with the intent to defile, and second degree sexual assault. Prior to sentencing, Petitioner was found guilty of recidivism. The Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner’s convictions and attendant sentencing, holding (1) Petitioner’s convictions of abduction with intent to defile and second degree sexual assault did not violate Petitioner’s constitutional right against double jeopardy; (2) the State’s evidence was sufficient to convict Petitioner of the crimes of burglary and second degree sexual assault; (3) the trial court correctly instructed the jury on the elements of abduction with intent to defile; and (4) the trial court did not commit prejudicial error related to Petitioner’s recidivist conviction and sentencing. View "State v. Lewis" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder without mercy and concealment of a deceased human body. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err by (1) determining that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the first degree murder conviction; (2) refusing to disqualify the prosecuting attorney’s office when the assistant prosecutor who tried the case became a potential witness during her trial preparation of a potential witness; (3) failing to conduct an in camera hearing due to alleged juror misconduct and by failing to order a mistrial regarding this issue; (4) allowing the State to play a video recording to the jury of the Petitioner at the sheriff’s department; and (5) allowing the co-defendant’s plea agreement to be admitted for purposes of assessing the witness’s credibility. View "State v. Murray" on Justia Law

After a trial, the circuit court convicted Petitioner of operating or attempting to operate a clandestine drug laboratory and conspiracy to operate or attempt to operate a clandestine drug laboratory. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in (1) denying Petitioner’s motion to dismiss, as both counts one and two in the indictment each charged Petitioner with a single offense, and not two separate offenses as Petitioner argued, so there was no violation of W. Va. R. Crim. P. 8; (2) failing to give the entirety of Petitioner’s proposed instruction concerning the burden of proof for actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance; (3) denying Petitioner’s motion to suppress; and (4) determining that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the convictions. View "State v. Brock" on Justia Law

Elizabeth Shanton was indicted in a fifty-four count indictment connected to her use of a purchasing card (P-card) issued pursuant to West Virginia’s Purchasing Card Program. The circuit court dismissed fifty-three counts, each of which alleged that Shanton used the P-card in violation of W. Va. code 12-3-10b. The circuit court determined that the inclusion of these counts in the indictment violated principles of double jeopardy because (1) each swipe of the P-Card was part of a continuing offense, and therefore, Shanton could only be charged with one violation of section 12-3-10b; and (2) the elements of the crime described in the fifty-three dismissed counts overlapped completely with the elements of the remaining count. The State sought a writ of prohibition to prohibit the circuit court from enforcing its order dismissing the fifty-three counts. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court erred by (i) collapsing counts 2 through 54 into a single count, thereby effectively dismissing all but one of those counts, and (ii) dismissing the condensed count, thereby dismissing all counts in the indictment alleging violations of section 12-3-10b; and (2) the State was entitled to the writ it sought. View "State ex rel. Lorenzetti v. Hon. Sanders" on Justia Law

When an officer working at a sobriety checkpoint encountered Respondent, the officer administered a series of field sobriety tests. The officer then administered a preliminary breath test, which Respondent failed. A secondary chemical test of Respondent’s breath indicated that Respondent’s blood alcohol content was .157. The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) subsequently revoked Respondent’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle in the State for the offense of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) reversed the DMV’s order of revocation, finding that the sobriety checkpoint deviated from the police department’s “DUI Sobriety Checkpoint Operations Manual” and that those deviations rendered Respondent’s arrest unlawful. The circuit court affirmed the order of the OAH and reinstated Respondent’s driver’s license. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s order and remanded for reinstatement of the DMV’s revocation order, holding that the sobriety checkpoint at issue was legally valid and that Respondent’s arrest for DUI was lawful. View "Reed v. Pettit" on Justia Law

After a jury-waived trial, Petitioner was found guilty of battery. The court found that the battery was sexually motivated and ordered Petitioner to register as a sex offender. The Supreme Court affirmed the battery conviction but reversed the finding that the offense was sexually motivated, holding (1) Petitioner’s due process rights were violated by the State’s failure to provide pretrial notice of its intent to seek a finding of sexual motivation, and the trial court’s finding of sexual motivation and concomitant registration requirements constituted plain error requiring reversal; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the conclusion that Petitioner committed battery. View "State v. Seen" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Respondent was convicted of one felony count of abduction with intent to defile and one misdemeanor count of battery. Respondent later filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, asserting that his right to a fair trial was violated because he was briefly placed in handcuffs in view of some members of the jury. The circuit court agreed, granted the writ, and vacated Respondent’s convictions. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Respondent being handcuffed in view of “at least some of the jurors” for a brief period of time was not sufficient to establish reversible error, nor grounds for a mistrial. View "Ballard v. Meckling" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Respondent was convicted for sexual abuse in the first degree and sexual abuse by a custodian for his acts involving an eleven-year-old boy. Respondent later filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that his federal and state due process rights were violated because of unfair prejudice resulting from references to him, by the prosecutor and through testimony during trial, as a pedophile. The habeas court granted relief and vacated Respondent’s convictions and sentence, concluding that the testimony constituted inadmissible character evidence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) while the references to pedophilia were improper, the error was harmless; and (2) the State overwhelmingly established Respondent’s guilt of the crimes charged. View "Ballard v. Hunt" on Justia Law