Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of one count of child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury, holding that the circuit court erred in refusing to admit the mother's prior conviction as impeachment evidence pursuant to W. Va. R. Evid. 609, and the error was not harmless.The four-month-old victim suffered permanent and life-altering injuries as a result of non-accidental trauma. In his defense, Defendant sought to introduce evidence that two years earlier the mother had been convicted in Virginia of felony child endangerment for refusing to provide nutrition and medical care to her six-month-old child. The circuit court excluded the evidence under W. Va. R. Evid. 404(b) and refused to admit it for impeachment purposes under Rule 609. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court clearly erred in excluding the evidence of the mother's prior felony conviction; and (2) the error was reversible, entitling Defendant to a new trial. View "State v. Michael C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the Public Service Commission resolving City of Benwood's complaint about the City of Wheeling's increase in the wholesale rate it charged to Benwood for wholesale sewage treatment services by forty-five percent, holding that the Commission exceeded its statutory authority.At issue was whether the Commission exceeded its authority under the plain and unambiguous language of W. Va. Code 24-2-1(b)(6) when it elected to start the jurisdictional, 120-day clock on the date the Commission argued it received sufficient information from Wheeling to resolve the dispute between the two cities. The Supreme Court vacated the order below, holding that the Commission exceeded its statutory authority by entering its final order more than 120 days after Benwood filed its complaint. View "City of Wheeling v. Public Service Comm'n of W. Va." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the family court concluding that a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) entered in 2001, rather than a final order of divorce, must control the division of Husband's retirement benefit, holding that Husband's motion to vacate the QDRO was untimely under W. Va. R. Civ. P. 60(b).The parties in this case were divorced by a final order entered by the circuit court in 2000, and the circuit court entered a QDRO in 2001. In 2020, Husband filed a motion to vacate the QDRO, arguing that Wife was only entitled to the amount contained in the divorce order. The family court denied the motion after determining that the QDRO and final divorce order contained conflicting terms regarding the division of Husband's retirement benefit, and therefore, the QDRO must be enforced. The Supreme Court affirmed after considering Husband's argument pursuant to Rule 60(b), holding that Husband's requested relief was not timely sought. View "Carl A. v. Deborah A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the circuit court erred by denying Petitioners' counsel's request for an attorney fee and costs pursuant to the common fund doctrine in the underlying lawsuit involving a quiet title action and concomitant claim for unpaid and gas royalties, holding that the circuit court erred.The underlying lawsuit ultimately resulted in two separate monetary settlements, one for the benefit of Petitioners and one for the benefit of a separate group of individuals whose interests were wholly aligned with Petitioners' interests but with whom Petitioners' counsel had not been able to establish contact. At issue was whether counsel was entitled to payment of attorney fees and costs from the separate settlement fund he negotiated with the second settlement, despite the fact that counsel had no contractual relationship with those individuals. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that counsel was entitled under the common fund doctrine to require the beneficiaries for whom he was not acting by agreement to contribute to the "reasonable and necessary expense" of securing the common bond for their benefit. View "L&D Investments, Inc. v. Antero Resources Corp." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the circuit court resentencing Petitioner to eighty years of incarceration in connection with his conviction for first-degree robbery, holding that the sentencing court plainly erred by failing to follow W. Va. R. Crim. P. 32(b)(1) when sentencing Petitioner.On appeal, Petitioner argued that the sentence imposed by the circuit court was disproportionate to his crime and that the circuit court failed to make particularized findings to justify the sentence. The Supreme Court vacated the sentencing order without reaching the merits of Petitioner's claims, holding (1) the plain language of Rule 32(b)(1) requires that the sentencing court receive and consider a presentence report before sentencing unless certain conditions are met; and (2) the sentencing court in this case erred by sentencing Petitioner without meeting all the conditions listed in Rule 32(b)(1). View "State v. McDonald" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court sentencing Petitioner to life in prison pursuant to the habitual criminal statute, W. Va. Code 61-11-18, holding that the circuit court did not err.After Petitioner was convicted of one count of fleeing in a vehicle with reckless disregard the State filed an information charging him as a recidivist with three felony convictions. Thereafter, the legislature amended the habitual criminal statute, making the changes effective on June 5, 2020. The circuit court applied the 2020 version of the recidivist statute and sentenced him to life imprisonment with parole eligibility after fifteen years. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court properly applied the 2020 version of W. Va. Code 61-11-18 rather than the 2000 version of the statute; and (2) the sentence was not unconstitutionally disproportionate to the crimes Petitioner committed. View "State v. Horton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the portion of the adjudicatory and dispositional orders culminating in the termination of Petitioners' parental rights to four of the seven children at issue in this case and affirmed the termination of Petitioners' parental rights as to the remaining children, holding that the circuit court erred in part.In the underlying proceedings the circuit court terminated the parental, custodial, and guardianship rights to seven children, three of whom resided in the home at the time the abuse and neglect petition was filed and the other four of whom were in legal guardianships with various relatives. The Supreme Court vacated the orders in part, holding (1) there was ample support for the termination of Petitioners' parental rights as to the children who resided in the home; and (2) the circuit court failed to make adequate findings to support its exercise of jurisdiction over the children in legal guardianships. View "In re B.V." on Justia Law

West Virginia Code of State Rules 64-10-8, “Blood Analysis; Standards and Methods,” sets forth the standards and methods the West Virginia Bureau of Public Health has established to ensure the accuracy of blood tests administered to determine the amount of ethyl alcohol in a person’s blood. In 2020 the West Virginia Supreme Court unanimously concluded (Corley) that absent evidence that a diagnostic blood test complied with the requirements of Rule 64-10-8, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) was justified in discounting the accuracy of any blood test results for purposes of an aggravated DUI enhancement.In two cases, the circuit courts affirmed the OAH finding that absent evidence that the blood diagnostic was performed in compliance with the Rule, the OAH was justified in assigning no weight to the results for purposes of an aggravated enhancement. The Commissioner of the Division of Motor Vehicles appealed. The West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed, declining to overrule Corley. The court rejected an argument that the diagnostic test results are entitled to a presumption of accuracy since they were included in the administrative record before the OAH and were not rebutted. View "Frazier v. Powers" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court awarding Respondent damages following a bench trial denying each Petitioner the ability to present a witness at a bench trial on damages, holding that the lower court's order was deficient and required this case to be reversed and remanded to the circuit court.Following the bench trial, the circuit court granted Respondent damages in the amount of $87,377, which represented the gross amounts from two unpaid invoices plus interest and late fees. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court's order did not comply with the requirements of Rule 52(a), nor did the circuit court make the required findings of fact or conclusions of law orally as permitted by the rule, thus rendering the order insufficient for this Court to undertake a proper appellate review. View "Warrior Oil & Gas, LLC v. Blue Land Services, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court converted this interlocutory appeal to a petition for a writ of prohibition in this negligence action and granted extraordinary relief, holding that a discretionary writ of prohibition should issue in this case.Plaintiff brought this case against West Virginia University Hospitals (WVUH) for the alleged negligence of two emergency room physicians, both of whom were employees of the West Virginia University Board of Governors, on a theory of ostensible agency. WVUH filed a motion to dismiss that was converted into a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it could not be held liable on a theory of ostensible agency under W. Va. Code 55-7B-9(g), which insulates non-employer healthcare providers from ostensible agency liability if the agent maintains a requisite amount of insurance coverage for the injury. The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that the two physicians did not meet the coverage requirements of the statute so as to alleviate WVUH of ostensible agency liability. The Supreme Court granted extraordinary relief, holding that the circuit court's reading of section 55-7B-9(g) as applied was clear error because it failed to account for W. Va. Code 55-7H-1 to -6, which cannot be reconciled with the circuit court's reading of section 55-7B-9(g). View "State ex rel. W. Va. University Hospitals, Inc. v. Honorable Gaujot" on Justia Law