Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court denied a writ of prohibition sought by Petitioner requesting the Supreme Court to issue a writ of prohibition to prevent the Honorable Paul Farrell, Judge of the Circuit Court of Cabell County, from enforcing the court's order in which the circuit court denied Petitioner's motion to dismiss, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to the writ.Petitioner was indicted on three felony offenses in the Circuit Court of Cabell County. In his request for prohibitory relief from the Supreme Court, Petitioner argued that the State violated his speedy trial right by not trying him within three regular terms of court after the return of his indictment, as required by W. Va. Code 62-3-21. The Supreme Court denied the requested writ of prohibition, holding that there was no violation of the three-term rule in this case because, as of the date of Petitioner's motion to dismiss and the circuit court's ruling on the motion, three regular terms of court had not yet passed since Petitioner had been indicted. View "State ex rel. Porter v. Honorable Paul Farrell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting and sentencing Defendant for first-degree robbery, holding that Defendant's assignments of error did not merit relief.Defendant and his girlfriend were indicted for robbing a gambling parlor. Before trial, the girlfriend agreed to testify against Defendant. After Defendant made a series of jailhouse phone calls to his girlfriend, she withdrew her plea agreement and declared she would not testify against Defendant. The circuit court granted the State's motion to admit the girlfriend's recorded statement into evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in granting the State's motion to admit the girlfriend's out-of-court statement under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine; (2) the circuit court properly found that Defendant had engaged in wrongdoing that would support the admission of the girlfriend's out-of-court statement; (3) Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of trial counsel; and (4) the court's answer to a jury question was not in error. View "State v. Jako" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court sentencing Petitioner to a determinate term of give years in the penitentiary for his felony conviction of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and an enhancement of five years under the West Virginia Habitual Offender Act, W. Va. Code 61-7-7(b)(2), for a total determinate term of ten years' imprisonment, holding that the circuit court did not err.On appeal, Petitioner argued that the circuit court erred by denying his motion to dismiss his indictment based on the State's use of his previous Indiana conviction was the predicate felony barring his right to possess a firearm. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that an out-of-state felony controlled substance conviction may serve as the predicate felony conviction necessary for a charged violation of section 61-7-7(b)(2) regardless of the classification of that crime in the State of West Virginia. View "State v. Ward" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction and sentence for manufacturing a controlled substance, holding that the circuit court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence that Defendant argued was the fruit of an illegal entry and search of his home.Law enforcement went to Defendant's home to serve a domestic violence emergency protective order (EPO) that prohibited Defendant from possessing firearms and provided for the surrender of firearms to the officer serving the EPO. The officers concluded that the EPO served as a search warrant permitting them to enter and search Defendant's home for weapons. When the officers stepped into the residence, they smelled marijuana and performed a protective sweep, including a pat down of Defendant. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence, which the circuit court denied. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) an EPO is not a de facto search warrant, and no exception to the warrant requirement applied to otherwise validate the entry into and search of Defendant's home; and (2) therefore, the circuit court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress. View "State v. Snyder" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of one count of driving under the influence causing serious bodily injury and sentencing him to life in prison, with mercy, holding that there was no error.After the jury returned a guilty verdict, the State filed a recidivist information alleging that Defendant had previously been convicted of two prior felony offenses. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant's motions for a mistrial; (2) the State provided sufficient evidence of Defendant's prior Maryland conviction; and (3) the sentence imposed by the trial court was not an unconstitutionally disproportionate punishment under W. Va. Const. art. III, 5. View "State v. Costello" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition sought by the prosecuting attorney of Monongalia County to prohibit the circuit court from enforcing its order suppressing Cesar Felix's statement to Morgantown police and certain DNA evidence, holding that the circuit court committed clear legal error.Cesar Felix worked at a restaurant where a woman claimed that she was sexually assaulted upon leaving. When police interviewed him, Defendant denied any involvement in the crime and consented to a DNA search by cheek swab. The DNA evidence linked Felix to the crime, and he was subsequently charged with two counts of sexual assault. Defendant filed a motion to suppress his statement and the DNA evidence, claiming that he was not given Miranda warnings or advised of his right to refuse his consent to the DNA search. The circuit court granted the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant was not in custody when he gave his statement, and therefore, no Miranda warnings were required; (2) Defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and due process rights were not violated; and (3) Defendant's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches was not violated. View "State ex rel. DeChristopher v. Gaujot" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court that the child R.S. be permanently placed with his siblings in the K family's home, holding that the circuit court erred by failing to conduct a best interest of the child analysis and ordering placement based solely on its conclusion that this placement was mandatory under W. Va. Code 49-2-126(a)(6).In this case concerning two foster families seeking placement of R.S. the circuit court ruled that newly enacted legislation, including section 49-2-126(a)(6), mandated that R.S. be placed in the same home as his siblings rather than in the home of Petitioners, who had had custody of R.S. for approximately half of the child's life. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) section 49-2-126(a)(6) requires a circuit court to conduct a best interest of the child analysis by considering a child's needs and a family's ability to meet those needs; and (2) the circuit court erred by removing R.S. from Petitioners' custody. View "In re R.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered certified questions of law by holding that W. Va. Code 60A-4-416(b), which criminalizes the failure of any person who, while engaged in the illegal use of a controlled substance with another, knowingly fails to seek medical assistance for such other person and an overdose or adverse physical reaction proximately causes the death of the other person, is constitutional.Petitioner was indicted on the charge of failing to render aid to another, in violation of section 60A-4-416(b). Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the statute is unconstitutionally vague. The circuit court held the motion in abeyance and determined that certain aspects of section 60A-4-416(b) warranted the certification of two questions to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court answered (1) the phrase in section 60A-4-416(b) "any person who, while engaged in the illegal use of a controlled substance with another" is not unconstitutionally vague; and (2) the undefined phrase "seek medical assistance" in the context of the statute provides an adequate standard for adjudication. View "State v. Conner" on Justia Law