Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Appellant Carroll Humphries, a convicted felon, filed a writ of habeas corpus with the Supreme Court after his conviction. The Court reversed and remanded the case due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon remand, appellant pleaded nolo contendere to the crime of accessory before the fact to murder, and appellant was found guilty. Later, appellant instituted a legal malpractice action against his attorney, Paul Detch. Detch filed a motion to dismiss, which the circuit court granted. Appellant appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) in a suit against an attorney for negligence, the plaintiff must prove the attorney's employment, the attorney's neglect of a reasonable duty, and that such negligence was the proximate cause of loss to the plaintiff; (2) to state a cause of action for legal malpractice arising during a criminal proceeding, a plaintiff must establish that he is actually innocent of the underlying criminal offense; and (3) the rules of evidence in this case did not prohibit the conviction and sentence that resulted from the nolo contendere plea from being admitted as evidence in the legal malpractice action to prove the plaintiff was convicted of the crime that was the subject of the nolo contedere plea. View "Humphries v. Detch" on Justia Law

When appellant Tevya W. (mother) and appellee Elias V. (father) divorced in 2003, an approved shared parenting plan provided that their son Elias was to reside primarily with his mother. In 2005, the family court transferred full custody of Elias to the father due to the mother's drug usage. In 2006, the mother filed a petition to regain primary custody of Elias. The family court found insufficient evidence to support a change of the custody arrangements. The mother subsequently filed two more petitions to alter custody arrangements, the second of which resulted in an order altering weekend custody, and the third of which resulted in no change to the custody arrangement. The mother appealed the third order, and the circuit court affirmed. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the record supported a finding that Elias's current residential placement was in Elias's best interests and holding that there was no abuse of discretion in the conclusions of the family court and circuit court. View "Tevya W. v. Elias V." on Justia Law

When he was less than two years old, Hunter H. was placed with foster parents after the Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) discovered his parents were using crack cocaine. After residing with the foster parents for three years, the DHHR sought to permanently place Hunter with his grandmother. The circuit court placed Hunter with his grandmother. The foster parents and guardian ad litem appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court's order placing Hunter with his grandmother was clearly erroneous because it elevated the statutory preference for grandparent adoption over the best interests of the child. The Court concluded that because the foster family had created a stable, loving environment for Hunter in which he was growing and thriving for three years, it was in Hunter's best interests to be permanently placed with his foster parents. View "In re Hunter H." on Justia Law

Defendant Stanley Myers appealed an order of the circuit court that determined he was a sexually violent predator. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Defendant asserted that the trial court failed to make a statutory determination within the time frame contemplated by the governing statute. On the day after Defendant's release from prison in 2006, he registered with the State Police as a "sexual predator." As a result of an incident several years later, the State discovered Defendant was not on the "sexually violent predator" list. The State filed a motion to request Defendant be placed on the list. Upon careful review of the matter, the Supreme Court found that the trial court erred by determining, contrary to state law, that Defendant was a sexually violent predator after Defendant had completed his period of incarceration. The Court reversed the decision of the lower court.

Three cases were consolidated for appeal. All cases challenged the constitutionality of West Virginia Code 62-12-26, which provides for a period of extended supervision after the release of certain sex offenders from custody. While the particular arguments of the appellants varied, the collective basis for challenging the statute as facially unconstitutional on both federal and state grounds was that the statutory provisions constituted cruel and unusual punishment, violated due process rights, and served to subject a person to double jeopardy. Upon completion of its review of the arguments, relevant statutes, applicable case law and commentary, the Supreme Court concluded that West Virginia Code 62-12-26 is not facially unconstitutional on these grounds. Furthermore, the Court found “no breach of constitutional principle or abuse of discretion in the application of the statute.” Accordingly, the orders from the courts in West Virginia v. James, West Virginia v. Hedrick and West Virginia v. Daniels are affirmed. View "West Virginia v. James, West Virginia v. Hedrick, West Virginia v. Daniels" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Anthony Juntilla appealed his convictions of first degree murder, sexual assault and conspiracy. Defendant was accused of the assault, beating and stabbing death of his girlfriendâs one-year-old daughter. The circuit court ordered Defendantâs sentences to run consecutively. Defendant challenged his convictions and sentences on multiple grounds, the majority being procedural errors at trial that lead to him being wrongly convicted. After a thorough review of the lower courtsâ records, the Supreme Court found no errors at trial. The Court found that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient for a reasonable jury to convict him of the charges against him. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Defendantâs convictions and sentences.

Commissioner Joe E. Miller, on behalf of the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles, appealed an order by the circuit court that reversed his final order that revoked Petitioner Edward Simsâs driverâs license. Mr. Sims was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. On appeal, Commissioner Miller argued that the circuit court did not give substantial weight to all of the evidence presented against Mr. Sims. Upon review of the courtâs records, the Supreme Court agreed with Commissioner Miller that the circuit courtâs conclusions were in error. The Court reversed the order of the circuit court and reinstated Commissioner Millerâs order revoking Mr. Simsâ license.