Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court granting in part and denying in part Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that there was no error in the circuit court's partial denial of habeas relief.After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of first-degree robbery and malicious assault. Petitioner's later-filed petition for writ of habeas corpus asserted sex general grounds for relief with various bases. The habeas corpus court granted Petitioner's request for credit for time served on home confinement pending appeal but otherwise denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the habeas corpus court's denial of relief. View "Sowards v. Ames" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court imposed sanctions upon Respondent, the Honorable C. Carter Williams, for his violations of multiple provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Rules of Professional Conduct, holding that a six-month suspension without pay and other sanctions were warranted.Judicial disciplinary proceedings against Respondent, a circuit judge in the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit, were initiated after he was stopped for a traffic violation by a police officer, identified himself as a a judge, contacted the officer's supervisors and made retaliatory and coercive comments. The West Virginia Judicial Hearing Board (JHB) concluded that a three-month suspension without pay and other sanctions was warranted, but the Judicial Disciplinary Counsel argued that the sanction was too lenient. The Supreme Court concluded that a six-month suspension without pay was appropriate to address Respondent's conduct and imposed the JHB's recommendation that Respondent comply with monitoring for two years, be censured and fined $5000 in addition to be required to pay certain costs. View "In re Honorable Williams" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Board of Review (BOR) affirming the finding of the Office of Judges (OOJ) that Respondent's claim for occupational pneumoconiosis benefits against Petitioner was timely, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to relief on its allegations of error.The claims representative for Petitioner's worker's compensation insurance carrier found that Respondent's claim for benefits was filed outside of the pertinent three-year statute of limitations and therefore denied it. The OOJ reversed, ruling that Respondent was not time-barred from filing his claim. Thereafter, the Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board found that Respondent had a ten-percent impairment. The BOR affirmed on the timeliness issue. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the BOR did not clearly err in finding that Respondent filed his occupational pneumoconiosis claim within the three-year limitations period. View "Argus Energy, LLC v. Marenko" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of second-degree murder and sentencing him to a determinate term of forty years following a jury trial, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court did not err in not granting Defendant's motion for a mistrial because of two instances in which the State made references to Defendant's pre-trial silence after finding that the references did not violate Defendant's right against self-incrimination because any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) there was no error in the jury instructions; (3) Defendant failed to show that there were errors in the empanelment of the jury; and (4) there was no cumulative error in this matter. View "State v. Hoard" on Justia Law

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