Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

With one exception, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Petitioner's petition of habeas corpus relief from Petitioner's conviction on four counts of first-degree sexual abuse and related offenses against his daughter, holding that only the circuit court's imposition of a period of supervised release as part of Petitioner's sentence is reversed.Petitioner filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus and then refused to cooperate with a succession of appointed counsel or to file an amended petition under his demand were met. Without Petitioner's approval, the circuit court ultimately ordered counsel to file an amended petition raising all issues that counsel deemed to be viable. After an omnibus hearing, the circuit court denied relief on all grounds. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court's imposition of a period of supervised release did not pass constitutional muster; and (2) the circuit court properly denied habeas relief on all other issues raised by Petitioner and/or his counsel. View "Frank A. v. Ames" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the West Virginia Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act (West Virginia Act), W. Va. Code 62-1D-1 through 16, runs afoul of the First Amendment to the federal Constitution and W. Va. Const. art. III, 7 and is unconstitutional as appleid to the extent that it allows a civil action to be maintained against an innocent third party who publishes information of public concern that was obtained by the unlawful interception of wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of the statute but who did not participate in the unlawful interception of the communication.Petitioners, public school employees, alleged that the mother of A.P., a special education student in their classroom, violated both the West Virginia Act and its federal construct by placing a secret audio recording device in A.P.'s hair, purporting to show Petitioners physically and verbally abusing students. After Petitioners resigned, they brought this complaint alleging that Respondents, various media groups or outlets, violated the West Virginia Act by using and disclosing Petitioners' intercepted communications. The circuit court granted Respondents' motions to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in dismissing the case. View "Yurish v. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court reversing the decision of a West Virginia State Police Grievance System hearing officer and ordering the reinstatement of Respondent to his employment as a state trooper, holding that the circuit court impermissibly substituted its judgment for that of the hearing examiner.The hearing examiner concluded that Respondent had committed conduct unbecoming of a state trooper and had used excessive force, among other things, and that the preponderance of the evidence supported the decision to terminate Respondent's employment. The circuit court reversed, concluding that the hearing examiner's decision was clearly wrong and erroneous as a matter of law. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court impermissibly substituted its judgment for that of the hearing examiner, who was the factfinder in this manner; and (2) the hearing examiner's account of the evidence was plausible in light of the entire record. View "W. Va. State Police v. Walker" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a requested writ of prohibition and prohibited the enforcement of a circuit court order granting a motion to dismiss two counts of sexual assault in the second degree, holding that the circuit court failed properly to analyze the necessary factors for sanctions against the State.The defendant in the underlying criminal case filed a motion to dismiss the indictment against him, alleging that the State violated various discovery orders. The circuit court dismissed two counts of the indictment, declared a mistrial, and ruled that the subject matter of the dismissed counts could not be mentioned at trial on the remaining counts. The State filed this petition for a writ of prohibition, arguing that the circuit court abused its discretion when it dismissed the indictment as a discovery sanction. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion and committed clear legal error when it dismissed, as a discovery sanction, the two counts of sexual assault in the second degree. View "State ex rel. Smith v. Honorable Olejasz" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof.Defendant was convicted of first-degree robbery, conspiracy, and entry of a dwelling. The Supreme Court affirmed. Defendant later filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus asserting that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to introduce certain evidence and by not requesting specific jury instructions and that the prosecutor knowingly presented false testimony. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant failed to prove ineffective assistance of counsel; and (2) Defendant's second assignment of error lacked merit. View "Goodman v. Searls" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court granting Respondent's petition to adopt H.G., holding that there was insufficient to show that the court abused its discretion in granting the petition for adoption.When she filed her petition to adopt H.G., Respondent had been H.G.'s primary caretaker for seven years and his legal guardian for three years, and had had sole discretion regarding visitation with the child for one year. Petitioner, the child's birth mother, opposed the adoption. After a hearing, the circuit court granted the petition on the grounds that Petitioner had abandoned the child. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in concluding (1) involuntary wage garnishment in 2019 did not constitute financial support; and (2) Petitioner failed to visit or communicate with the child for at least six months preceding the petition. View "In re Adoption of H.G." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court publicly censured the Honorable Louise E. Goldston, a family court judge, for serious misconduct and ordered her to pay a total fine of $1,000, holding that censure was appropriate under the facts and circumstances.Judge Goldson searched a self-represented party's home for marital property, and when the homeowner protested, the judge threatened to jail him for contempt. After an investigation the Judicial Investigation Commission charged Judge Goldson with violating the West Virginia Code of Judicial Misconduct. Under a settlement agreement with Judicial Disciplinary Counsel, the judge admitted to violating the Code of Judicial Conduct, and both parties agreed to recommend that Judge Goldson be censured and fined. The Judicial Hearing Board, however, recommended that Judge Goldson be admonished and fined. The Supreme Court disagreed with the Judicial Hearing Board, holding that the judge exercised executive powers forbidden to her under the West Virginia Constitution and compounded her error by the manner in which she conducted the search and that censure was appropriate. View "In re Honorable Louise E. Goldston" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the disposition order of the circuit court terminating Father's parental rights to his infant child, holding that the circuit court did not err in terminating Father's parental rights in lieu of granting him an improvement period.The circuit court adjudicated Father of being abusive and neglectful because his incarceration rendered him unable to care for the child and unable to protect the child from Mother's substance abuse. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the circuit court's analysis under In re Cecil T., 717 S.E.2d 873 (W. Va. 2011), was insufficient. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court failed to conduct an appropriate Cecil T. analysis; but (2) under this Court's own Cecil T. review, Petitioner's parental rights should be terminated. View "In re A.F." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's reversal of the order of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) affirming the Division of Motor Vehicles' revocation of Joshua Derechin's driver's license but reversed the court's award of cost and attorneys fees, holding that the circumstances did not support an award of costs and fees.In reversing and rescinding Derechin's license revocation and dismissing the case with prejudice, the circuit court concluded that Derechin had been prejudiced by OAH's nearly four-year delay in issuing a final order. The court then awarded Derechin costs and attorney fees for "overall delay" of the proceedings. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the circuit court (1) properly concluded that Derechin had been actually and substantially prejudiced by the long post-hearing delay; and (2) erred in awarding costs and attorneys fees for both the pre-hearing and post-hearing delays. View "Frazier v. Derechin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the summary and declaratory judgment order of the circuit court determining that Frank Bonacci and Brian Bonacci (together, the Bonacci brothers) were the owners of an undivided and unsevered oil and gas estate, holding that there was no error.The circuit court's order found that the Bonacci brothers were the owners of the undivided oil and gas estate at issue because the tax deeds through which Petitioners, two Florida limited liability companies, had allegedly obtained title to the same mineral estate were void. Petitioners appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in concluding that the underlying tax deeds were void. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the tax deeds were void and conveyed no interest in the oil and gas estate underlying the surface panel now owned by the Bonacci brothers. View "Orville Young, LLC v. Bonacci" on Justia Law