Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

An officer stopped Petitioner’s vehicle for a traffic infraction and determined that Petitioner was under the influence of marijuana. The Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles subsequently revoked Petitioner’s license to operate a motor vehicle due to driving under the influence of controlled substances. The Office of Administrative Hearings upheld the driver’s license revocation. The circuit court reversed. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s order and remanded for reinstatement of the Commissioner’s order revoking Petitioner’s license, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence for the hearing examiner to make findings of fact that supported the Commissioner’s order of revocation; and (2) the Commissioner had jurisdiction to enter an order suspending Petitioner’s driving privileges. View "Dale v. Oakland" on Justia Law

Edwin Miller Investments, LLC ("EMI") owned twelve acres of real estate used to secure a loan from BCBank, which assigned the note and deed of trust to CGP Development Co. ("CGP"). The State became the legal owner of eight acres of EMI's property after it paid $241,000 into court following a condemnation action. EMI defaulted on its loan, and CGP purchased the remaining four acres at a foreclosure sale. The circuit court ordered release of the $241,000 paid into court to CGP in partial satisfaction of CGP's lien. EMI and CGP disagreed as to which party was entitled to additional proceeds paid as damages to the four-acre residue as well as additional sums resulting from the condemnation of the eight acres. The circuit court concluded that CGP was entitled to all of the condemnation proceeds and dismissed EMI from the condemnation proceeding. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the circuit court's finding that CGP was entitled to all sums awarded for damage to the four-acre residue purchase by CGP; but (2) reversed the circuit court's finding that CPG was entitled to any additional sums resulting from the condemnation of the eight-acre tract and the court's dismissal of EMI from the condemnation proceedings. Remanded.View "Edwin Miller Invs. v. CGP Dev. Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Husband and Wife were married and had a child together. The family court later entered an order granting the parties a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. Wife was designated the custodian of the parties' child and Husband was granted parenting time with certain limitations due to Husband's propensity to initiate conflict with other person. The circuit court affirmed most of the family court's rulings, with the exception of the limitations on Husband's visitation with the child, concluding that the family court abused its discretion when it limited Husband's visitation because of potential conflicts with other persons. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's order insofar as it expanded Husband's parenting time with the child and remanded with directions to reinstate the family court's order, holding that the family court's limitation of Husband's contact with the child was amply supported by the evidence, and it was an abuse of the circuit court's discretion to overrule the family court's order in this regard.View "Mark V.H. v. Dolores J.M." on Justia Law

Petitioners in these two consolidated appeals were convicted of sexual-related offenses. Both Petitioners were sentenced pursuant to section W. Va. Code 62-12-26, which provides for extended supervision of certain sex offenders. In each case, the lower courts modified Petitioners' supervised release and imposed additional sanctions pursuant to section 62-12-26(g)(3). The primary issue in the appeals was the constitutionality of the portion of section 62-12-26 that permits the revocation of supervised release and additional incarceration when a sex offender violates a condition of supervised release. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' orders in each case, holding (1) section 62-12-26(g)(3) does not violate constitutional principles of due process, equal protection, and double jeopardy; and (2) Petitioners' post-revocation sanctions were not constitutionally disproportionate to their underlying convictions. View "State v. Hargus" on Justia Law

Respondent was arrested for driving under the influence after his vehicle was stopped by a police officer responding to a telephone call and information obtained from an individual claiming she had observed the vehicle driving erratically. The Division of Motor Vehicles issued an order administratively revoking Respondent’s license. The Office of Administrative Hearings reversed Respondent’s license revocation, finding that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the officers had an articulable reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop, and therefore the initial traffic stop was invalid and the resulting license revocation was improper. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that both the initial stop and the arrest were valid. Remanded for an order reinstating Respondent’s administrative license revocation. View "Dale v. Ciccone" on Justia Law

After making threatening statements to employees of a credit union Petitioner was arrested and charged with the offense of threats of terrorist acts in violation of W. Va. Code 61-6-24. Following a bench trial, the circuit court found sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction of a terrorist threat. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred when it found that his statements amounted to a threat against the civilian population under the statute. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the circuit court’s determination that Petitioner knowingly and willfully threatened to commit a terrorist act. View "State v. Knotts" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder, both without a recommendation of mercy, and one count of arson. The circuit court denied Petitioner’s motions for acquittal and for a new trial and sentenced him to life in the penitentiary without the possibility of parole for each murder conviction. Petitioner appealed the circuit court’s denial of his post-trial motions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support Petitioner’s convictions; (2) the circuit court did not err in permitting the State to cross-examine Petitioner regarding a novel Petitioner had written; and (3) the prosecutor did not improperly cross-examine Petitioner regarding his post-arrest silence or present false testimony. View "State v. Prophet" on Justia Law

The Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) filed a petition to institute abuse and neglect proceedings against Mother regarding her child K.L. The DHHR’s petition against Mother was based solely on the prior involuntary termination as to another child C.W. The circuit court terminated Mother’s parental rights after finding that Mother failed to meet her burden of showing a change in her circumstances since the termination of her parental rights to C.W. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court committed reversible error in shifting the burden to Mother in this abuse and neglect case. Remanded. View "In re K.L." on Justia Law

In two separate convictions, Petitioner was first found guilty by a jury of sexual abuse in the first degree. The State subsequently filed a recidivist information against Petitioner and obtained a jury conviction. Petitioner appealed both convictions separately and the Supreme Court consolidated the appeals. The Supreme Court reversed Petitioner’s conviction of first degree sexual abuse and vacated his recidivist conviction, holding that the circuit court erred in admitting evidence pursuant to W. Va. R. Evid. 404(b) at Petitioner’s first trial, and the improper admission of the evidence was not harmless error. View "State v. Angle" on Justia Law

Before she died, Decedent executed a Will. The Will had an “Exhibit A” attached to it at the time the Will was submitted to probate. The exhibit set forth bequests made by Decedent to various relatives. Both Exhibit A and the Will contained handwritten notices. After a dispute arose between the co-executors of the Will and some of the beneficiaries of the Will concerning the administration of Decedent’s estate, the co-executors filed a petition for declaratory relief. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the beneficiaries, concluding (1) Exhibit A to the Will was properly incorporated by reference into the Will; (2) the handwritten notations found on the Will and Exhibit A that were made after the date the Will was executed were “surplusage” and could be disregarded; and (3) Decedent intended Exhibit A to be incorporated into the Will. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that there was insufficient evidence to allow Exhibit A to be incorporated by reference into the Will. View "Cyfers v. Cyfers" on Justia Law