Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Petitioner was indicted on two counts of third degree sexual assault and two counts of sexual abuse by a custodian. The circuit court subsequently found that Petitioner was not competent to stand trial and was not likely to gain competency. As a result, Petitioner argued that the court should dismiss the charges against him. The circuit court disagreed, finding that the felonies of which Petitioner was charged involved acts of violence against a person. Therefore, the court found that it would maintain jurisdiction over Petitioner for fifty years and ordered Petitioner committed to a mental health facility. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err by finding that the crimes with which Petitioner was charged involved an act of violence and therefore proceeding pursuant to W. Va. Code 27-6A-3(h). View "State v. George K." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder. Petitioner appealed his conviction, but the Supreme Court refused the request to hear the appeal. Petitioner subsequently filed a request for habeas corpus relief, alleging that both his trial counsel and his appellate counsel were ineffective. The circuit court denied the requested habeas relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in finding that trial counsel effectively represented Petitioner; and (2) the circuit court did not err in denying habeas corpus relief on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. View "State ex rel. Adkins v. Dingus" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and first degree arson involving a fire that killed his girlfriend. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility for parole on the murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding, inter alia, that (1) no error was committed in the way the preliminary hearing was conducted; (2) the circuit court did not err in striking a witness' testimony; (3) the circuit court did not err in denying a mistrial after a witness' testimony was found to be incorrect; (4) the circuit court did not err in allowing into evidence Defendant's statements to law enforcement that were given without Miranda warnings; (4) the circuit court did not err in failing to dismiss the indictment because of spoliation of evidence; and (5) Petitioner's decision to testify on his on behalf was not coerced by the trial court.View "State v. Davis" on Justia Law

Petitioners in these two consolidated appeals were convicted of sexual-related offenses. Both Petitioners were sentenced pursuant to section W. Va. Code 62-12-26, which provides for extended supervision of certain sex offenders. In each case, the lower courts modified Petitioners' supervised release and imposed additional sanctions pursuant to section 62-12-26(g)(3). The primary issue in the appeals was the constitutionality of the portion of section 62-12-26 that permits the revocation of supervised release and additional incarceration when a sex offender violates a condition of supervised release. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' orders in each case, holding (1) section 62-12-26(g)(3) does not violate constitutional principles of due process, equal protection, and double jeopardy; and (2) Petitioners' post-revocation sanctions were not constitutionally disproportionate to their underlying convictions. View "State v. Hargus" on Justia Law

After making threatening statements to employees of a credit union Petitioner was arrested and charged with the offense of threats of terrorist acts in violation of W. Va. Code 61-6-24. Following a bench trial, the circuit court found sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction of a terrorist threat. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred when it found that his statements amounted to a threat against the civilian population under the statute. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the circuit court’s determination that Petitioner knowingly and willfully threatened to commit a terrorist act. View "State v. Knotts" on Justia Law

In two separate convictions, Petitioner was first found guilty by a jury of sexual abuse in the first degree. The State subsequently filed a recidivist information against Petitioner and obtained a jury conviction. Petitioner appealed both convictions separately and the Supreme Court consolidated the appeals. The Supreme Court reversed Petitioner’s conviction of first degree sexual abuse and vacated his recidivist conviction, holding that the circuit court erred in admitting evidence pursuant to W. Va. R. Evid. 404(b) at Petitioner’s first trial, and the improper admission of the evidence was not harmless error. View "State v. Angle" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder, both without a recommendation of mercy, and one count of arson. The circuit court denied Petitioner’s motions for acquittal and for a new trial and sentenced him to life in the penitentiary without the possibility of parole for each murder conviction. Petitioner appealed the circuit court’s denial of his post-trial motions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support Petitioner’s convictions; (2) the circuit court did not err in permitting the State to cross-examine Petitioner regarding a novel Petitioner had written; and (3) the prosecutor did not improperly cross-examine Petitioner regarding his post-arrest silence or present false testimony. View "State v. Prophet" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of sexual abuse by a parent, guardian, custodian or person in a position of trust to a child and sentenced to twenty years in the penitentiary. Two years later, Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction habeas corpus relief, arguing that his former defense counsel was ineffective for failing to submit proper jury instructions on whether Petitioner was a “person in a position of trust” as to the victim and whether the victim was under Petitioner’s “care, custody, or control” at the time of the sexual encounter. The circuit court granted Petitioner’s petition. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the failure to offer the instructions did not constitute deficient performance by counsel. View "Ballard v. Thomas" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of conspiracy and two counts of delivery of crack cocaine. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err by (1) denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized by the police from the residence where Defendant was staying at the time of his arrest; (2) summarily rejecting a plea agreement that Defendant reached with the State on the second day of his trial, as the plea agreement had not yet been finalized; and (3) admitting W. Va. R. Evid. 404(b) evidence. View "State v. Dorsey" on Justia Law

Steven Malay was indicted by a grand jury on multiple counts of sexual abuse by a parent, guardian, custodian or person in position of trust in violation of W. Va. Code 61-8D-5, among other sexual offenses. Malay moved to dismiss the eight counts charging him with violating section 61-8D-5 on the grounds that his employment as a school bus driver did not cause him to qualify as a custodian or person of trust under the statute, and even if it did, the acts were not committed while he was serving in that capacity. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to six counts. The State sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the circuit court from enforcing its order. The Supreme Court granted the requested writ, holding that the question of whether a person charged with a crime under section 61-8D-5 is a custodian or a person in a position of trust in relation to a child is a question of fact for the jury to determine, and therefore, the circuit court exceeded its authority in dismissing the six counts. Remanded. View "State ex rel. Harris v. Judge Hatcher" on Justia Law