Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction for knowingly providing false or misleading information to a member of the City of Martinsburg Police Department, holding that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction.Defendant's conviction arose from an incident during which Detective Jonathan Smith, who was not wearing a uniform, went to Defendant's home to investigate information regarding a potential fraudulent credit card charge associated with Defendant's address. Detective Smith, who did not initially identify himself as a law enforcement officer, asked Defendant personal questions, in response to which Defendant gave a false name. Later in the conversation, Detective Smith informed Defendant that he was a police officer, but Defendant did not subsequently notify Detective Smith of her real name. The circuit court convicted Defendant for violating section 509.05 of the City of Martinsburg Municipal Code. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in finding that Defendant was required to notify an investigating law enforcement officer of her real name after learning that he was in actuality a law enforcement officer. View "City of Martinsburg v. Dunbar" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court that re-sentenced Defendant, for purposes of appeal, to an indeterminate term of not less than ten nor more than twenty years in connection for his conviction of one count of sexual abuse by a parent or person in a position of trust to a child, holding that there was no error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant's motion to suppress his recorded confession and allowing Defendant's interview at the police department to be played for the jury; (2) the circuit court did not err by failing to give two jury instructions proffered by Defendant; and (3) Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not properly before this Court on direct appeal. View "State v. Campbell" on Justia Law

With one exception, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Petitioner's petition of habeas corpus relief from Petitioner's conviction on four counts of first-degree sexual abuse and related offenses against his daughter, holding that only the circuit court's imposition of a period of supervised release as part of Petitioner's sentence is reversed.Petitioner filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus and then refused to cooperate with a succession of appointed counsel or to file an amended petition under his demand were met. Without Petitioner's approval, the circuit court ultimately ordered counsel to file an amended petition raising all issues that counsel deemed to be viable. After an omnibus hearing, the circuit court denied relief on all grounds. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court's imposition of a period of supervised release did not pass constitutional muster; and (2) the circuit court properly denied habeas relief on all other issues raised by Petitioner and/or his counsel. View "Frank A. v. Ames" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a requested writ of prohibition and prohibited the enforcement of a circuit court order granting a motion to dismiss two counts of sexual assault in the second degree, holding that the circuit court failed properly to analyze the necessary factors for sanctions against the State.The defendant in the underlying criminal case filed a motion to dismiss the indictment against him, alleging that the State violated various discovery orders. The circuit court dismissed two counts of the indictment, declared a mistrial, and ruled that the subject matter of the dismissed counts could not be mentioned at trial on the remaining counts. The State filed this petition for a writ of prohibition, arguing that the circuit court abused its discretion when it dismissed the indictment as a discovery sanction. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion and committed clear legal error when it dismissed, as a discovery sanction, the two counts of sexual assault in the second degree. View "State ex rel. Smith v. Honorable Olejasz" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof.Defendant was convicted of first-degree robbery, conspiracy, and entry of a dwelling. The Supreme Court affirmed. Defendant later filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus asserting that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to introduce certain evidence and by not requesting specific jury instructions and that the prosecutor knowingly presented false testimony. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant failed to prove ineffective assistance of counsel; and (2) Defendant's second assignment of error lacked merit. View "Goodman v. Searls" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition requested by the state arguing that the circuit court exceeded its authority in ordering the dismissal of indictments against Michael Daniel Bowman, holding that the State was entitled to the writ.Bowman was convicted of five sexual offenses including sexual abuse by a custodian. Bowman later filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The circuit court rejected Bowman's argument as to why the indictments against him were defective but sue sponte found "fatal flaws" with the grand jury proceedings. The circuit court then ruled that Bowman's convictions were null and void and ordered that the indictments be dismissed with prejudice. The state then filed this original jurisdiction proceedings. The Supreme Court granted the requested relief and ordered that Bowman's convictions be reinstated, holding that absent any allegations of willful, intentional fraud, the circuit court had no authority to look behind the indictments, and the circuit court's inquiry should have ceased. View "State ex rel. State v. Honorable Hummel" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court entering an order extending Petitioner's probation period past five years, holding that there was no error.In 2015, Petitioner was sentenced to two years of incarceration in connection with her plea of guilty to a felony offense and placed on supervised probation for five years. At the time, W. Va. Code 62-12-11 permitted probation period of up to five years, but the statute was amended in 2017 to permit a probation period of up to seven years. When Petitioner committed a probation violation in 2020 the circuit court determined that the 2017 probation statute applied to Petitioner's probation violation and entered an order extending Petitioner's probation period past five years. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the circuit court did not have the authority to extend her sentence to a probationary period beyond five years. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no ex post facto violation under the circumstances. View "State v. Metheny" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court granting the State's motion to transfer this juvenile case to the criminal jurisdiction of the circuit court pursuant to W. Va. Code 49-4-710, holding that there was no error.Petitioner, the juvenile in this case, was seventeen years and seven months old when he was charged with child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury and child neglect resulting in serious bodily injury. The state police filed a juvenile petition alleging that Petitioner was a delinquent child. The State filed a motion to transfer Petitioner's juvenile proceedings to the circuit court's criminal jurisdiction. The circuit court granted the State's motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in transferring the case to the criminal jurisdiction of the circuit court. View "In re C.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted, as moulded, Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking to direct Respondent, the superintendent of the South Central Regional Jail, to restore him to parole, holding that Petitioner was entitled to the requested relief.After serving one-fourth of his definite term sentence for violating conditions of his supervised release Petitioner was released on parole. Six months later, however, the Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DOCR) determined that Petitioner had erroneously been released, and Petitioner was arrested and reincarcerated. The DOCR made this determination based upon an internal policy that inmates incarcerated for violating the conditions of their supervised release are neither eligible for parole nor entitled to receive commutation from their sentences for good conduct. Petitioner then filed this petition. The Supreme Court granted the requested relief as moulded, holding (1) to the extent the warrant for Petitioner's arrest was based upon a determination that Petitioner was ineligible for parole, the warrant was issued in error; and (2) Petitioner was eligible for parole when he was released, and S.B. 713 may not be applied to him so as to exclude him from being granted good time after October 20, 2020. View "State ex rel. Phalen v. Roberts" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court denying Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that the circuit court failed to provide a meaningful evidentiary hearing and that the circuit court's order was insufficient.Petitioner pled guilty to second-degree murder and entered an Alford/Kennedy plea to malicious wounding. Following revelations related to new DNA test results, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus raising three grounds for relief. The circuit court denied habeas relief. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment below, holding (1) the circuit court erred by failing to hold a meaningful evidentiary hearing on the grounds raised in Petitioner's petition; and (2) the circuit court's order did not sufficiently set forth factual findings and conclusions of law as to each contention raised in the habeas petition. The Court remanded the case with instructions for the circuit court to hold an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the habeas petition and to issue an order that included sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law as to each contention advanced by Petitioner. View "Dement v. Pszczolkowski" on Justia Law