Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder, first degree robbery, and criminal conspiracy. The accomplice who shot and killed the victim pled guilty to first degree murder, and as part of his plea agreement, the accomplice testified for the State during Defendant's trial about his guilty plea. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences, holding (1) an accomplice who has entered a plea of guilty to the same crime charged against the defendant may testify as a witness on behalf of the State, but if the jury learns of the accomplice's guilty plea, then, upon the motion of the defendant, the trial court must give a limiting jury instruction; and (2) because Defendant did not preserve any error by objecting or requesting a limiting instruction in this case, the trial court did not plainly err in denying Defendant's motion for a new trial on the ground that the court failed to give a limiting instruction regarding the accomplice's testimony.View "State v. Flack" on Justia Law

EB Dorev Holdings, Inc. purchased tax liens on certain properties from Kanawha County. The West Virginia Department of Administration, Real Estate Division (WVDOA) later filed a complaint against EB Dorev and Kanawha county seeking to prevent the issuances of the tax deeds to EB Dorev. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the WVDOA and voided the sale of the tax liens. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court erred in ruling that the properties were entered exempt from 2009 real estate taxes upon the WVDOA’s purchase of the properties from private entities in August and September of 2008; but (2) the circuit court’s alternative finding that the tax liens at issue were extinguished through the doctrine of merger was not in error. View "EB Dorev Holdings v. W. Va. Dep’t of Admin., Real Estate Div." on Justia Law

Mark Miller sued Justin Golden for criminal conversation, adultery and breach of fiduciary duty to a beneficiary, alleging that his ex-wife engaged in an adulterous affair with Golden that led to the Millers’ divorce. Golden filed a motion for summary judgment, which the circuit court denied. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for a writ of prohibition, arguing that all of Miller’s causes of action were, in essence, claims for alienation of affections, which are statutorily prohibited. The Supreme Court granted the requested writ of prohibition, holding (1) all of Miller’s causes of action were based on claims for alienation of affections; and (2) because all claims for alienation of affections are prohibited by W. Va. Code 56-3-2a, the torts of criminal conversation and adultery are hereby abolished. View "State ex rel. Golden v. Hon. Kaufman" on Justia Law

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

Petitioners purchased a house for $234,000. Six months later, the County Assessor appraised the property and found its fair market value was $355,200. The Board of Review upheld the Assessor's valuation. The circuit court affirmed. On appeal, Petitioners asserted that the circuit court erred by failing to apply caselaw holding that the price paid for real estate in a recent arm's length transaction is a substantial indicator of the property's true and actual value and that the purchase of the property was in an arm's length transaction on the open real estate market. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's order affirming the Board of Review, holding that the circuit court erred by failing to consider the purchase price of Petitioners' property. Remanded.View "Wright v. Banks" on Justia Law

Beckley Appalachian Regional Hospital (Beckley ARH) was a voluntary provider of medical services through the Medicaid program pursuant to an agreement executed between it and the West Virginia Bureau for Medical Services (BMS). Beckley ARH filed a lawsuit against the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources and its secretary and the BMS and its commissioner (collectively, Respondents), seeking a remedy for inadequate Medicaid reimbursement rates. The circuit court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that W. Va. Code 9-15-16 and 16-29B-20 do not provide for an express or implied private cause of action by a Medicaid provider for judicial review of reimbursement rates for medical services.View "Appalachian Reg'l Healthcare v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res." 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

The West Virginia Real Estate Appraiser Licensing and Certification Board filed disciplinary complaints against Linda York, a licensed real estate appraiser, alleging that York engaged in improper, wrongful or deficient conduct in her work as an appraiser. York filed a petition for writ of prohibition seeking to stop the Board's disciplinary proceedings against her, arguing that the Board lacked the authority to reopen previously dismissed complaints against her and that the Board grossly abused and exceeded its legitimate powers in regard to the remaining complaints. The Supreme Court issued the writ, holding that the Board (1) was without authority to reopen or reinstate the complaints that were duly dismissed; and (2) exceeded its jurisdiction by failing to conduct an administrative hearing on the complaints, and the Board’s failure to do so was in clear violation of State statutory and rule provisions. View "State ex rel. York v. Real Estate Appraiser Licensing & Certification Bd." on Justia Law

Respondent began employment with the Raleigh County Emergency Services Authority in 2002. In 2010, the West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board notified Respondent that he was ineligible to participate in the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) because he had not worked the statutorily-required 1,040 hours per year necessary for participation in PERS. The Retirement Board upheld the denial. The circuit court reversed, concluding that the Board was equitably estopped from denying to Respondent participation in PERS. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Board was not prevented from denying to Respondent the right to participate in PERS where (1) Respondent’s employer erroneously informed him that he was eligible to participate in PERS; and (2) Respondent did not rely on the Board’s representations about his PERS eligibility in accepting the position with the Authority. View "W. Va. Consol. Pub. Ret. Bd. v. Jones" on Justia Law