Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

As a result of a criminal investigation, Petitioner and others were arrested at Petitioner's home. Petitioner was prosecuted in federal court. The State filed a petition for forfeiture of the property owned by Petitioner. Petitioner later pleaded guilty to several drug offenses. The State then filed a summary judgment motion in the forfeiture action, which the circuit court granted. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment and its determination that the Excessive Fines Clause in the West Virginia and U.S. Constitutions were not violated. Because the Court was unable to assess whether the forfeiture of Petitioner's real property in this case violated the Excessive Fines Clause in the West Virginia Constitution and the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the case was remanded for further development of the record. View "Dean v. State" on Justia Law

After a second trial, Respondent was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison with mercy. The circuit court subsequently granted Respondent habeas corpus relief, finding that Respondent's counsel in his second trial was ineffective. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the circuit court erred in (1) ruling that it was constitutional error for the trial court to fail to advise Respondent of his right to testify and not to testify and that trial counsel's failure to enforce this right rose to the level of ineffectiveness; and (2) determining that Respondent's co-defendant was not a credible witness. View "Ballard v. Hurt" on Justia Law

Through means of a writ of prohibition, Petitioner, a county prosecuting attorney, sought to prevent the enforcement of the order of the circuit court dismissing one count of felony murder from the indictment returned against James Sands. In dismissing the count, the trial court took the position that a co-perpetrator, Sands, could not be found guilty of felony murder where the intended victim of a burglary was the person who caused the death of a co-perpetrator, Dakota Givens. The Supreme Court found no error in the circuit court's decision to dismiss the felony murder count and therefore denied the writ of prohibition, holding that the circuit court correctly found that the offense of felony murder does not encompass the death of a co-perpetrator caused by the intended victim of a burglary attempt. View "State ex rel. Davis v. Circuit Court (Fox) " on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed an order of the circuit court denying his petition for a writ of prohibition. Petitioner had sought extraordinary relief in the court below in an effort to stop the Commissioner of the West Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) from pursuing license revocation proceedings against him. Petitioner contended that he was deprived of constitutional and statutory protections because DMV had no shown good cause for the repeated delays in hearing the license revocation matter. The lower court denied relief in prohibition, concluding that the Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Hare posed identical issues and rendered Petitioner's request moot. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the lower court misinterpreted the Court's holding in Hare by failing to observe its limited application to facts not present in this case; and (2) the circuit court was required to address problems in the record. Remanded to determine whether good cause was established under existing due process standards for granting the continuances in Petitioner's DMV proceeding, and for entry of a final order capable of review. View "Holland v. Miller" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint against The Burke-Parsons-Bowlby Corporation, Stella-Jones U.S. Holding Corporation, and Stella-Jones, Inc. (collectively, Defendants) alleging that Defendants unlawfully terminated his employment based on his age. Finding that Defendants wrongfully terminated the employment of Plaintiff based on his age, the jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff in the amount of $2,133,990, which represented compensatory damages for lost back pay and front pay. Denying that age played any role in Plaintiff's termination, Defendants filed a motion for a new trial, which the circuit court denied. Defendants submitted three assignments of error upon which they contended the motion for a new trial should have been granted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in its judgment. View "Burke-Parsons-Bowlby Corp. v. Rice " on Justia Law

Petitioner Victoria Drumheller and three corporate entities sought relief from the default judgment entered against them by the circuit court in connection with a breach of contract action filed by Respondents James and Diane Fillinger. Petitioners asserted (1) they were wrongfully denied the right to have a jury determine the amount of damages they owed to Respondents in connection with the default judgment, and (2) the damage award was not supported by the evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not commit error in entering the subject default judgment and in holding a bench trial on the issue of damages. View "Drumheller v. Fillinger" on Justia Law

This action arose from modifications resulting from landfill activity made to real property that was adjacent to the property of Respondents. Respondents filed a complaint against the Town of Pratt and others, alleging that the modifications allegedly caused a change in the normal water flow on Respondents' property and resulted in property damage. The Town filed a motion to dismiss or alternatively for summary judgment, asserting it was entitled to be dismissed based on sovereign immunity. The circuit court denied the Town's motion as premature, finding that the parties should conduct discovery prior to the court making a determination regarding the Town's immunity arguments. The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's order denying the Town's motion and granted the Town's requested writ of prohibition, finding that the Town's immunity was purely a question of law and ripe for summary disposition at the circuit court level through a motion to dismiss. View "State ex rel. Town of Pratt v. Circuit Court (Stucky)" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed a circuit court order affirming a magistrate court's ruling that she obstructed a police officer in violation of W. Va. Code 61-5-17(a). Defendant admitted she lied to a police officer during the course of a felony investigation and that the false statement she gave was a violation of section 61-5-17(c). Defendant argued, however, that making a false statement to a police officer is not a violation of section 61-5-17(a) and that her conviction should be overturned because she was charged under the wrong statute. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's order, holding that Defendant's conduct - lying to a law-enforcement officer during the course of an official investigation - was sufficient to support a conviction of obstruction pursuant to section 61-5-17(a). View "State v. Davis" on Justia Law

Petitioners, the Public Service Commission of West Virginia and the Wetzel County Solid Waste Authority, sought to compel Respondents, Lackawanna Transport Company and Solid Waste Services, Inc., to comply with an order entered by the Public Service Commission requiring them to produce certain information and financial records pertinent to an ongoing investigation concerning the Wetzel County Landfill. The Supreme Court granted the requested writ of mandamus, holding (1) a writ of mandamus is appropriate in this case, as Respondents were legally required to produce the requested information; and (2) while arguably there was another remedy available in this instance through the circuit court, that remedy was not adequate given the unique circumstances given here. View "State ex rel. Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. Lackawann Transp. Co." on Justia Law

This was a criminal appeal by Defendant from an order of the circuit court sentencing him to life imprisonment without parole for first degree murder, ten to twenty-five years imprisonment on each of nine counts of sexual assault in the second degree, and one to five years imprisonment on each of three counts of sexual abuse in the first degree. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial judge did not commit error in rejecting a plea proposal; (2) the evidence was sufficient to convict Defendant of felony murder; and (3) the trial judge properly admitted a statement Defendant made to the police. View "State v. Welch" on Justia Law