Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A natural gas producer in West Virginia, operating under the name Equinor USA Onshore Properties Inc. (formerly Statoil USA Onshore Properties Inc.), entered into contracts with a third-party processor, MarkWest, for the processing and sale of natural gas liquids (NGLs) extracted from its raw gas. Under these contracts, Equinor transferred title of its raw gas to MarkWest, which then processed, fractionated, and sold the NGLs to third parties. MarkWest paid Equinor a “Net Value” after deducting various fees from the gross sales (“Product Value”). Equinor initially reported the “Product Value” as its gross proceeds for severance tax purposes, but later amended its returns to claim the “Net Value” as the proper measure and sought significant refunds, also claiming a fifteen percent deduction (safe harbor) for transportation and transmission costs.The State Tax Commissioner partially granted Equinor’s refund requests but denied the remainder, arguing that Equinor could not deduct both actual and safe harbor costs from the gross proceeds and that the “Product Value” should be the starting point for tax calculation. The Office of Tax Appeals (OTA) affirmed the Commissioner’s decisions. Equinor appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), which reversed the OTA, holding that the “Net Value” represented the gross proceeds Equinor actually received, and that Equinor was entitled to the fifteen percent safe harbor deduction since it had not already deducted actual transportation costs.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed both the substantive tax dispute and a separate timeliness issue regarding Equinor’s petition for reassessment of a 2015 tax refund. The Court affirmed the ICA’s ruling that the “Net Value” was the correct basis for gross proceeds and that the safe harbor deduction was allowable. On the timeliness issue, the Court reversed the ICA, holding that Equinor’s petition for reassessment was timely filed. The case was remanded with directions for refunds to be issued consistent with these holdings. View "Statoil USA Onshore Properties, Inc. v. Irby" on Justia Law

The case concerns an individual who, along with a companion, was involved in the unauthorized taking of a company vehicle from a hotel parking lot in West Virginia in May 2021. The companion misrepresented herself as an employee to obtain the car keys from hotel staff, while the petitioner was present in the lobby. The two left together, and the vehicle was later tracked and found by police, who arrested both individuals. During his arrest, the individual volunteered information to police that he was on supervised release for a prior federal conviction.In the Circuit Court of Harrison County, the petitioner moved to exclude references to his federal supervised release status from bodycam footage to be shown at trial. Both the prosecution and defense agreed this information should be redacted, as it was not relevant to the charges. However, the circuit court denied the motion, finding the evidence to be “intrinsic” to the crime. The unredacted footage was admitted at trial, and the jury returned guilty verdicts for grand larceny and conspiracy to commit grand larceny.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and concluded that the circuit court abused its discretion by admitting the bodycam audio referencing the petitioner’s supervised release. The high court found this evidence was not intrinsic to the charged crimes, was irrelevant and inadmissible under Rule 404(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, and that its admission was prejudicial, given the circumstantial nature of the remaining evidence. The Supreme Court of Appeals held that the error was not harmless and reversed the convictions, remanding for a new trial. View "State v. Paglia" on Justia Law

The case involved a mother whose three young children were removed from her custody after the Department of Human Services (DHS) filed a petition alleging abuse and neglect. The key allegations were that the mother abused substances, failed to protect her children from the substance abuse of others, and exposed them to unsafe and unsuitable living conditions. The mother admitted only to exposing her children to unsafe and unsuitable living conditions, and that was the sole ground upon which she was adjudicated. Although she continued to test positive for marijuana and faced other concerns during the proceedings, including issues related to mental health and prenatal care, she did not admit to these other allegations and was not adjudicated on those grounds.The Circuit Court of Fayette County first removed the children from the mother’s custody, then adjudicated her solely on the issue of unsafe and unsuitable housing. Later, after a dispositional hearing, the circuit court terminated her parental rights, relying not only on the housing issue, but also on her substance use, failure to seek mental health treatment, and lack of appropriate prenatal care, none of which were grounds for which she had been adjudicated. The mother appealed, arguing that her rights were terminated based on conditions for which she had not been properly adjudicated. The DHS and the guardian ad litem ultimately agreed that the circuit court erred.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that it was error to terminate the mother’s parental rights based on conditions of abuse and neglect for which she had not been adjudicated. The court further found that the DHS had not presented clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that the mother failed to remedy the only adjudicated issue—unsafe and unsuitable housing. The court vacated the termination order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "In re K.L.-1, K.L.-2, and K.G." on Justia Law

A man was indicted on six counts of wanton endangerment involving a firearm after allegedly firing an AR-type rifle at his wife’s vehicle while she was leaving their shared home with their children. Following the incident, law enforcement obtained and executed a search warrant for the man’s property, seizing a rifle, ammunition, and casings, and arrested him. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the search warrant was based on double hearsay and lacked a good faith effort to verify his wife’s statement. The State opposed the motion, and the Circuit Court of Pendleton County denied the suppression request.Subsequently, the parties entered into a conditional plea agreement. The defendant pled no contest to one count of wanton endangerment, with the right to appeal the suppression ruling, and agreed to pay restitution. The circuit court accepted the plea, dismissed the remaining charges, and continued the matter for sentencing, pending the outcome of the appeal. The circuit court’s order specified that the case would proceed to further hearings after the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia resolved the appeal on the suppression issue. At the time of appeal, the defendant had not been sentenced.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction at this stage because a sentence had not been imposed. The court clarified that, under West Virginia Code § 58-5-1(c), only a final judgment—which in a criminal case requires both conviction and sentencing—is appealable. Since the defendant had not yet been sentenced, there was no final order from which to appeal. The appeal was therefore dismissed without prejudice. View "State v. Hensley" on Justia Law

A state department responsible for child protective services sought relief from orders issued by a circuit court judge in two different child abuse and neglect cases. The judge had noticed delays between the initial referral of suspected abuse or neglect and the department’s formal filing of petitions in court. Concerned by a possible recurrence of a prior backlog in local investigations, the judge ordered the department to provide detailed information about all outstanding abuse and neglect referrals, staff vacancies, and the adequacy of resources in the local office. The orders were intended to help the court investigate and potentially remedy systemic delays in responding to abuse and neglect referrals.After the department objected, the circuit court stayed its orders to allow the department to petition for writs of prohibition before the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. The department argued that the orders improperly intruded on executive branch functions and exceeded the court’s authority, as they were not tied to any specific controversy before the court. The circuit judge responded that the orders were justified by the court’s responsibility to protect children and by statutory provisions regarding child welfare.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia found that the circuit court’s orders did not arise from any justiciable controversy between adverse parties in the pending abuse and neglect cases. The high court ruled that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to issue or enforce such orders in the absence of a live case or controversy or explicit statutory authority. The court emphasized that while circuit courts play an important role in child welfare proceedings, their authority is limited to matters directly involving parties before them. The Supreme Court of Appeals granted the department’s petitions and issued writs of prohibition, thereby invalidating the circuit court’s orders. View "State of West Virginia ex rel. West Virginia Department of Human Services v. Redding" on Justia Law

After the birth of S.S. in December 2023, the West Virginia Department of Human Services filed a petition alleging that S.S. was abused and neglected, primarily based on the mother’s substance abuse, S.S. being born drug exposed, and instability in the mother’s life. The petitioner, B.M., was named as the alleged father, and paternity was later confirmed through testing. The amended petition included allegations against B.M. of criminal convictions, a lengthy criminal history, and substance abuse, as well as noting his absence from S.S.’s life due to incarceration. At an adjudicatory hearing, B.M. stipulated to abusing drugs and not providing for S.S. because of his incarceration.Following adjudication, B.M. moved for a post-adjudicatory improvement period—a statutory opportunity to demonstrate behavioral change and correct the conditions of abuse and neglect. At the dispositional hearing, B.M. testified about his efforts at rehabilitation while incarcerated, including drug recovery and parenting classes, obtaining his GED, and preparing for release. The Circuit Court of Randolph County denied his motion for an improvement period, found that he could not participate due to incarceration, and terminated his parental rights, citing his lack of relationship with S.S., failure to acknowledge addiction, and the length of time since the case began.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and found that the circuit court’s decision rested on several clearly erroneous factual findings. The higher court concluded that B.M. could have participated in an improvement period upon his imminent release, that he had acknowledged and addressed his substance abuse problem, and that delays in the proceedings were not his fault. The court held that denying the improvement period was an abuse of discretion, vacated the order terminating parental rights, reversed the denial of the improvement period, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "In Re S.S." on Justia Law

A medically fragile child, A.E., was the subject of an abuse and neglect proceeding in Hancock County, West Virginia. After an evidentiary hearing, the Circuit Court awarded permanent custody of A.E. to his non-abusive mother, who resides in Florida. The court found that A.E.’s paternal grandparents, who live in West Virginia, were “psychological parents” entitled to visitation. As part of its permanency order, the court required the West Virginia Department of Human Services (DHS) to pay the costs of transporting A.E. from Florida to West Virginia for summer visitation with the grandparents each year until A.E. turned twenty-three.The DHS complied with the court’s order to pay for transporting A.E. to Florida for the custody transition but appealed the part of the order requiring it to pay transportation costs for visitation with the grandparents after permanency was achieved. The DHS argued that the court lacked legal authority for this requirement. No party appealed the custody decision, the visitation grant, or the determination of psychological parent status.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case de novo, focusing on whether the circuit court could require the DHS to pay visitation-related expenses after permanency. The high court held that, absent explicit statutory authority, circuit courts may not order the DHS to pay for such expenses after permanency has been achieved in an abuse and neglect proceeding. The court found no statutory or equitable basis for the order and further noted that the court’s jurisdiction and the DHS’s responsibilities end when the child turns eighteen or permanency is reached. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the portion of the order requiring the DHS to pay post-permanency transportation costs and remanded for entry of an amended order. View "In re A.E." on Justia Law

The petitioner was charged in Marshall County, West Virginia, with multiple counts of sexual abuse involving two victims, one of whom was a child. Before trial, the circuit court allowed the child victim to testify via live, closed-circuit television, as permitted by state statute. However, the petitioner elected to leave the courtroom during the child’s testimony, after which he was convicted on all counts. Following his conviction, the petitioner sought habeas corpus relief, raising several claims including the constitutionality of the closed-circuit testimony procedure, the validity of his indictments, his absence from certain pretrial hearings, allegations of improper jury communications, and ineffective assistance of counsel.The Circuit Court of Marshall County initially denied habeas relief without a hearing, but the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia remanded for an omnibus evidentiary hearing, particularly on ineffective assistance of counsel and sentencing concerns. On remand, the circuit court granted relief only on the petitioner’s ex post facto sentencing claim, ordering resentencing on certain counts, and denied all other claims, finding that the petitioner either waived them by not raising them on direct appeal or failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court’s rulings. The court held that because the petitioner did not raise his constitutional and procedural claims on direct appeal and failed to rebut the presumption of waiver, those claims could only be considered within the framework of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court concluded the petitioner’s counsel was not deficient under the standards set by Strickland v. Washington and State v. Miller, and that none of the challenged actions or omissions prejudiced the outcome of the trial. The court also held that Crawford v. Washington did not overrule Maryland v. Craig, and the statutory closed-circuit testimony procedure remained constitutional. View "Arthur C. v. Frame" on Justia Law

A group of individuals, including the petitioner, became involved in a series of drug-related activities centered around a home in Parkersburg, West Virginia. After the petitioner purchased drugs from Tiffany McCune, he became dissatisfied with their quality, leading to several confrontations and exchanges between the parties. The situation escalated when the petitioner returned to the McCune home, forcibly entered, and assaulted Tiffany with a pistol. During the ensuing chaos, Darren Salaam Sr., who was present in the house, was shot in the back and later died from his wounds. The petitioner fled the scene but was later apprehended. Upon arrest, he made racially charged statements, and photographs taken at booking displayed his swastika and Aryan Brotherhood tattoos.The Circuit Court of Wood County presided over the petitioner’s jury trial. The jury convicted him of felony murder, finding that the underlying felony was burglary. The petitioner was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. During the trial, the court admitted evidence of the petitioner’s tattoos and statements, as well as Tiffany McCune’s statements to police and a 9-1-1 call, over the petitioner’s objections on various evidentiary and constitutional grounds. The petitioner’s post-trial motions for acquittal and a new trial—primarily challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on the burglary element—were denied.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and the constitutional claims de novo. The court held that the tattoo evidence was relevant to motive and not unfairly prejudicial, Tiffany’s statements were admissible as excited utterances and not testimonial under the Confrontation Clause, and the evidence was sufficient to support the felony murder conviction. The court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment. View "State v. Thompson" on Justia Law

A young child, X.R., was left in the care of her maternal aunt, H.R., after her mother, J.R., struggled with substance abuse. The West Virginia Department of Human Services (DHS) initiated abuse and neglect proceedings that led to the termination of J.R.’s parental rights. During these proceedings, R.S. was identified as X.R.’s biological father. R.S. was adjudicated as an abusing parent due to lack of appropriate housing, but he successfully completed a court-ordered improvement period, demonstrating his ability to provide a stable environment. H.R. was recognized as X.R.’s psychological parent, having cared for her since birth.Following R.S.'s improvement period, the Circuit Court of Mason County ordered a parenting plan allocating equal custody and decision-making authority over X.R. to both R.S. and H.R., and dismissed the case. R.S. appealed, arguing that the plan violated his fundamental rights as a fit natural parent.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and determined that, because R.S. had completed his improvement period and was not found to be unfit at the time of the final order, his parental rights were intact and paramount. The court found that the circuit court erred in granting H.R. equal custody and decision-making authority based solely on the child’s best interests, without a finding of parental unfitness or other justification that would overcome the natural parent’s rights.Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Appeals reversed the portion of the parenting plan granting equal custody and decision-making to H.R., vacated the remainder of the plan and the dismissal order, and remanded the case with instructions. The circuit court was directed to determine the scope of continued association between X.R. and H.R., giving special weight to the father’s preferences while also considering the child’s best interests. View "In re X.R." on Justia Law