Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

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

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled guilty to one count of sexual assault in the third degree and to possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. Prior to sentencing, Petitioner moved to withdraw his plea on the basis that at the time he accepted the State’s plea offer, he was not advised that his plea subjected him to a potential life sentence as a habitual offender. The circuit court denied the motion. Thereafter, a jury found Petitioner guilty of being a habitual offender, and Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court and prosecuting attorney had no duty to inform Petitioner of enhanced sentencing before Petitioner entered his guilty plea; and (2) therefore, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. View "State v. Keith D." on Justia Law

Tracie Dennis pleaded guilty to embezzlement. The circuit court sentenced Dennis to an indeterminate term of incarceration and directed that the sentence be suspended for a period of probation. While Dennis awaited transfer from the South Central Regional Jail to the Lakin Correctional Facility for women, the circuit court granted Dennis’s motion for work release during her incarceration in the Regional Jail. The work release was granted for period of time between the entry of the order granting work release and the commencement of Dennis’s probation. The Commissioner of the West Virginia Division of Corrections filed a petition for a writ of prohibition challenging the work release order, arguing that, by granting Dennis work release after she had been placed in the Division’s custody, the circuit court exceeded its authority and interfered with the Division’s responsibilities to its inmates and to the public. The Supreme Court denied the Division’s request for relief in prohibition, holding that the circuit court had the authority and the discretion to grant Dennis work release for the purpose of paying restitution. View "State ex rel. Rubenstein v. Hon. Louis H. Bloom" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Petitioner pleaded guilty to first degree felony murder. The circuit court accepted Petitioner’s plea, finding that Petitioner had freely and voluntarily entered his guilty plea with the advice and consultation of competent legal counsel, and sentenced Petitioner to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner’s conviction and sentence, holding (1) Petitioner’s guilty plea to first degree felony murder was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made; and (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a harsher sentence upon Petitioner than the sentences imposed upon his co-defendants. View "State v. Holstein" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of two counts of attempted murder in the first degree, three counts of malicious assault, and other offenses arising from Defendant’s acts of deliberately shooting a man twice in the back and, in the process, accidentally shooting an eight-year-old girl. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding, primarily, that the circuit court erred in allowing a witness to make a blanket assertion of the Fifth Amendment without requiring the witness invoke his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination in front of the jury, thus violating Defendant’s constitutional right to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, but the error was harmless. View "State v. Herbert" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of felony murder. The circuit court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court abused its discretion by denying her the possibility of parole for the duration of her life imprisonment. Specifically, Defendant argued that the circuit court did not adequately justify its decision to depart from the prosecutor’s recommendation, in accordance with the plea agreement, that Defendant be granted eligibility for eventual parole from the required life sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court’s rejection of the State’s recommendation was an appropriate exercise of its legitimate discretion. View "State v. Allman" on Justia Law

In 1992, Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with the recommendation of mercy. In 1995, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which the circuit court denied. In 2012, Petitioner filed a second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. In 2013, Petitioner was paroled. The circuit court dismissed the habeas petition as moot because Petitioner no longer satisfied the statutory requirement of being incarcerated and because Petitioner received the relief he sought - release from custody. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, as a parolee, Petitioner was no longer incarcerated, and therefore, he was no entitled to seek post-conviction habeas relief. View "Cline v. Mirandy" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a written plea agreement Petitioner entered a no contest plea to one count of sexual abuse in the first degree. The circuit court later rescinded Petitioner’s probationary period “due to [Petitioner’s] non-compliance of conditions of his probation,” and sentenced Petitioner to a term of one to five years incarceration. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the circuit court and ordered Petitioner released from incarceration, holding that the circuit court erred in rescinding Petitioner’s probationary period based upon its determination that Petitioner violated the conditions of his probation, as Petitioner fulfilled all the conditions of the plea agreement at issue in this case. View "State v. Shrader" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of second degree murder. Petitioner was sentenced to a determinate term of forty years in prison. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in the manner in which it conducted a suppression hearing concerning his videotaped statement and erred in finding that a statement he made was voluntarily given to the police. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Petitioner’s challenges to the suppression hearing failed; and (2) under the circumstances, the circuit court correctly determined that Petitioner’s statement was voluntary and in admitting the statement into evidence. View "State v. Marcum" on Justia Law

Petitioner pleaded guilty to nighttime burglary by way of entering without breaking and grand larceny. As part of his sentence, Petitioner was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $50,013 to the victim of his crimes. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reconsideration of sentence requesting a reduction in the amount of restitution he was ordered to pay, arguing that the circuit court abused its discretion in determining the amount of restitution without the presentation of evidence of the victim’s loss at the sentencing hearing and without determining Petitioner’s ability to pay restitution. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a hearing on the issue of restitution, holding that the circuit court did not consider all of the pertinent circumstances in determining the practicality of an award of full restitution. View "State v. Atwell" on Justia Law