Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the circuit court granting Respondents' motion to dismiss the underlying complaint on the ground that it had not been timely filed and ruling that the two-year statute of limitations contained in the Governmental Tort Claims and Insurance Reform Act, W. Va. Code 29-12A-6(a), applied, holding that the court erred in granting the motion to dismiss.Petitioner, administratrix of the estate of Petitioner's infant son, sued Summers County Office of Emergency Management and its employee Carmen Cales (collectively Respondents), alleging wrongful death. The circuit court granted Respondents' motion to dismiss, ruling that the claims were governed by the Act and that Petitioner's case fell within the two-year statute of limitation set forth in section 29-12A-6(a). The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in concluding that the minority tolling provision set forth in section 29-12A-6(b) did not apply to this case; but (2) erred in granting Respondents' motion to dismiss Petitioner's claims on the ground that the statute of limitations had run on the claims. View "Trivett v. Summers County Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court in this case alleging malicious prosecution, civil conspiracy, and abuse of process claims against certain officials involved in Petitioner's prosecution for domestic battery and domestic assault, of which he was acquitted at trial, holding that there was no error.Petitioner Norm Launi II brought claims of malicious prosecution and civil conspiracy against West Virginia State Police Corporal Scott Nazelrod, special prosecuting attorney John Ours, and prosecuting attorney in Hampshire County Dan James and also asserted a claim for abuse of process against Nazelrod. The circuit court dismissed the claims against James and Ours on the basis of absolute prosecutorial immunity and found that Petitioner failed to state valid claims as to Nazelrod. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) properly dismissed the claims against James and Ours based on prosecutorial functions; and (2) did not err in concluding that Petitioner's claims against Nazelrod for malicious prosecution, civil conspiracy, and abuse of process failed on their merits. View "Launi v. Hampshire County Prosecuting Attorney's Office" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court finding that Petitioner violated the conditions of his supervised release and revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to a two-year term in prison, holding that United States v. Haymond, 588 U.S. __ (2019), does not apply to a supervised release revocation pursuant to W. Va. Code 61-12-26 because section 61-12-26 does not require a mandatory minimum sentence upon revocation.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the revocation of Petitioner's supervised release pursuant to W. Va. Code 62-12-26 did not violate Petitioner's constitutional rights; (2) the circuit court did not err by denying Petitioner's motion to dismiss the petition or by sentencing Petitioner to a term of imprisonment without holding a jury trial when revoking his supervised release; and (3) the circuit court did not clearly err in finding by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner conspired to deliver crack cocaine, in violation of conditions of his supervised release. View "State v. White" on Justia Law

In the underlying case asserting claims of accounting malpractice the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Petitioners' Rule 59(e) motion to amend or alter the court's order granting partial summary judgment to Respondents and denying Petitioners' Rule 60(b) motion for relief from an earlier circuit court order, holding that there was no error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the circuit court (1) did not abuse its discretion in summarily striking Petitioners' standard of care expert witnesses; (2) did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Respondents when expert testimony on the standard of care was not required to prove all claims for relief asserted against Respondents; and (3) did not err in denying Petitioners' motion for relief from judgment or order. View "Chafin v. Boal" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court dismissing Petitioner's appeal from his plea of no contest to obstructing an officer on the basis that Petitioner's no-contest plea in magistrate court resolved the case and barred Petitioner from pursuing appellate review in circuit court, holding that the circuit court erred in dismissing the appeal.Petitioner pled no contest in magistrate court to obstructing an officer and attempted to appeal the conviction to the circuit court. The circuit court dismissed the appeal, reasoning that Petitioner's no-contest plea in magistrate court barred him from pursuing appellate review in circuit court. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) under W.Va. Code 50-5-13(a) a defendant such as Petitioner may timely appeal a conviction in magistrate court to circuit court; and (2) section 50-5-13(a) and (b) afforded Petitioner a trial de novo, to the circuit court, without a jury. View "State v. Folse" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the circuit court reversing the final order of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upholding Respondent's administrative driver's license revocation for a period of five years for driving under the influence, holding that the circuit court erred in substituting its judgment for that of the OAH and in using its determination as a basis for overturning the OAH's decision.After a hearing, the circuit court concluded that the OAH improperly weighed results of field sobriety tests against the negative findings of secondary chemical tests and that Respondent's expert's "unrebutted" testimony supported the negative findings of the secondary chemical test. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the OAH's factual determination that Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent had ingested controlled substances impairing his ability to operate a motor vehicle was entitled to substantial deference; and (2) the evidence in this case supported that factual determination. View "Frazier v. Ramadan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the final order of the circuit court reversing a decision of the West Virginia Public Employees Grievance Board and finding that Respondents, educational sign language interpreters who worked with students in high school classrooms, qualified for the pay increase provided by W. Va. Code 18A-4-2(e) as full-time special education teachers, holding that the circuit court erred.In reversing, the circuit court concluded that the Grievance Board's decision was clearly erroneous and that Respondents qualified as full-time special education teachers. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Legislature intended the 2021 amendment of W. Va. Code 18A-4-2(e) to have retroactive effect; and (2) even in the absence of the 2021 amendment, Respondents were not "classroom teachers" under any version of W. Va. Code 18A-4-2(e), and therefore, they did not qualify for the salary increase provided therein. View "Kanawha County Bd. of Education v. Hall" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court denying the petition brought by Petitioners, Mother and Stepfather, to allow Stepfather to adopt R.L., a minor child, holding that W. Va. Code 48-22-306(a) does not preclude a finding of abandonment in a case where the birth parent has the ability to ascertain the child's whereabouts during the relevant time frame but willfully fails to do so.Because Respondent Father contested R.L.'s adoption the circuit court was require to analyze whether Father abandoned the child under section 48-22-306. The circuit court denied the adoption petition, concluding that Father did not abandon R.L. because (1) section 48-22-306(a)(2) permits a finding of abandonment only where the parent "fails to visit or otherwise communicate with the child when [he] knows where the child resides"; and (2) Father did not know where R.L. resided at the time the adoption petition was filed or in the preceding six months. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded this case for further proceedings, holding that the circuit court erred in concluding that it was precluding from finding abandonment because Father did not know where R.L. resided without any consideration as to whether Father could have ascertained that information. View "In re Adoption of R.L." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the amended sentencing order and the denial of Petitioner's motion for a judgment of acquittal, holding that there was no error in Petitioner's convictions or sentences.Petitioner was convicted of four counts of sexual abuse by a parent, guardian, custodian, or person in a position of trust (counts one through four) and four counts of sexual abuse in the first degree (counts five through eight). Petitioner filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The circuit court corrected Petitioner's sentence as to count four. In these consolidated appeals, Petition raised an ex post facto violation relative to the jury's instruction and, alternatively, sought a reduction in his sentence based on ex post facto principles baed on the fact that his criminal conduct that led to his conviction on count three occurred before the statute was amended to increase the penalty. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in concluding that there was sufficient evidence of sexual abuse after the statutory amendments to subject him to the harsher penalty; and (2) did not err in denying Petitioner's motion for a judgment of acquittal. View "State v. Todd C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court sentencing Petitioner to ten to twenty-five years' imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to second-degree sexual assault, holding that the circuit court's failure to explicitly discuss the mandatory mitigating circumstances listed in W. Va. Code 61-11-23(c) before ordering the final sentence was not prejudicial.On appeal, Petitioner argued that the circuit court failed to consider the "mitigating circumstances" set forth in section 61-11-23(c) and that his sentence was constitutionally disproportionate. The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence, holding (1) Petitioner's substantial rights were not affected by the circuit court's failure to acknowledge and consider the statutory mitigating circumstances; and (2) Petitioner's argument that his sentence was constitutionally disproportionate due to his age and mental capacity was unavailing. View "State v. Hall" on Justia Law