Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the family court granting Grandmother permanent guardianship of B.A., holding that the family court lacked jurisdiction to hear this case.Grandmother filed a motion for emergency order of guardianship in the family court noting that Mother was incarcerated and arguing that it was in the best interests of B.A. for her to be appointed guardian. The family court eventually entered a final order appointing Grandmother as B.A.'s guardian. Mother later filed a motion to modify and/or terminate the guardianship order, arguing that she had a material change in circumstances because she had been released from jail. The family court denied the motion. The Supreme Court vacated the family court's order, holding (1) in light of the allegations of neglect made by Grandmother and B.A.'s need for permanency, both Mother's and Father's parental rights needed to be ascertained by the circuit court under the standards set forth in chapter 49 of the West Virginia Code and the clear and convincing evidence standard articulated in West Virginia Rules of Practice and Procedure for Family Court 48a(a); and (2) therefore, the family court was divested of subject matter jurisdiction in this case. View "A.A. v. S.H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the final order of the circuit court denying Petitioner's petition for expungement of her felony charge, holding that Petitioner was entitled to mandatory expungement of her felony record under W. Va. Code 60A-4-407(b).Petitioner was a first-time offender whose drug-related offense to which she pled guilty involved distributing less than fifteen grams of marijuana without remuneration. Petitioner served a term of probation and satisfied all requirements of section 60A-4-407(b), and the case against her was dismissed. Petitioner later petitioned for expungement of her felony charge. The circuit court denied the petition on the ground that W. Va. Code 61-11-25 does not allow for the expungement of offenses that are dismissed in exchange for a guilty plea to another offense. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that W. Va. Code 60A-4-402(c) mandates that if a defendant who has been found guilty of a first offense for distributing less than fifteen grams of marijuana without any remuneration and satisfies the conditions of section 60A-4-407 then the defendant is entitled to expungement of any record of her arrest directly connected to the offense. View "State v. A.D." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's requested writ of certiorari to vacate an opinion issued by the West Virginia Legislative Claims Commission, holding that the opinion of the Claims Commission was not reviewable by the Supreme Court on a writ of certiorari at this procedural posture.Following the death of her son, Petitioner submitted a notice of claim with the Claims Commission against the West Virginia Department of Transportation, Division of Highways. The opinion of the Claims Commission stated that the Commission "[was] of the opinion to deny this claim." Petitioner then brought this action seeking a writ of certiorari from the Claims Commission's opinion. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that that review by writ of certiorari to this Court does not lie as to a non-binding recommendation of the Claims Commission made pursuant to W. Va. Code 14-2-12 that does not involve an existing or special appropriation and as to which the West Virginia Legislature has not taken final action. View "State ex rel. LaDayne v. West Virginia Legislative Claims Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's recidivist life sentence imposed in connection with Defendant's conviction of second offense failure to register as a sex offender, holding that Defendant's recidivist life conviction, as applied, was unconstitutionally disproportionate.Defendant was sentenced to ten to twenty-five years in prison for his offense. Because of his prior convictions, Defendant received a recidivist life sentence under W. Va. Code 61-11-18(c). Defendant appealed both his conviction and his sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but reversed the sentence, holding (1) the circuit court properly denied Defendant's motions for acquittal based on the sufficiency of the evidence and Defendant's contention that the trial court incorrectly instructed the jury that time was not of the essence of the alleged offense; but (2) the sentence imposed by the trial court for Defendant's offense was unconstitutionally disproportionate under W. Va. Const. art. III, 5 and the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. View "State v. Hoyle" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the circuit court reversing the decision of the state agency that oversees law-enforcement training refusing a state university's application seeking authorization to establish and operate a new law enforcement training academy for senior university students majoring in criminal justice studies, holding that the circuit court did not err.In denying the university's application to create a new law enforcement training academy the state agency concluded that the university's proposed academy was not necessary. The circuit court reversed the state agency's decision and ordered that the agency approve the university's application, finding that the agency's decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unsupported by law. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the agency's decision to deny the university's application to establish and operate an entry-level law enforcement training academy was arbitrary, capricious, and not supported by any statutory authority. View "Division of Justice & Community Service v. Fairmont State University" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition requested by Petitioners, West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) and guardian ad litem of six minor children, seeking to prohibit the circuit court from granting a post-adjudicatory improvement period to Respondents, the children's parents, holding that the circuit court committed a clear legal error.DHHR filed an abuse and neglect petition requesting emergency custody due to the threat of imminent danger to Respondents' five adopted children and one foster child. The circuit court entered an order adjudicating Respondents as abusive. The DHHR subsequently sought termination and the guardian ad litem recommended termination and that post-dispositional improvement periods be denied. The circuit court, however, granted Respondents a six-month post-adjudicatory improvement period. This writ of prohibition followed. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that the circuit court misapprehended the evidence, failed to consider probative evidence, and failed to consider the best interests of the children. The Court remanded the case to the circuit court for entry of an order terminating Respondents' custodial and parental rights. View "State ex rel. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Services v. Honorable Lora A. Dyer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court in this case considered two certified questions regarding West Virginia's kidnapping statute, W. Va. Code 61-2-14a.Defendant was indicted for kidnapping. During pretrial proceedings, the parties discussed (1) whether, under Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), the judge or the jury would need to make additional determinations when considering a kidnapping charge and (2) the propriety of special interrogatories to the jury in a kidnapping case. Defendant's trial was continued so that these issues could be brought to the Supreme Court for consideration. The Court answered, for a person convicted of kidnapping, (1) the trial judge, rather than the jury, is vested with the authority under the kidnapping statute to determine those facts that reduce the minimum and maximum penalty of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole; and (2) in the absence of a statutory or constitutional requirement that special interrogatories be submitted to a jury in a kidnapping case, a trial court exceeds its authority and abuses its discretion in submitting special interrogatories to determine those facts that reduce the minimum and maximum penalty of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole. View "State v. Scruggs" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Petitioner relief on his second petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to relief on his three arguments on appeal.Petitioner was convicted of burglary by entering without breaking and other offenses. In his second habeas corpus petition Petitioner raised four grounds for relief. The circuit court summarily dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the errors Petitioner raised in this appeal were either not raised below and therefore waived or were previously and finally adjudicated on the merits and not clearly wrong. View "Lewis v. Ames" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied the writ sought by the State Treasurer prohibiting the State Auditor from processing payments to senior-status judges that exceed the per diem rate allowed in W. Va. Code 51-9-10, holding that because there was no actual controversy between the parties the Treasurer was seeking an advisory opinion from the Court.In 2018, the Supreme Court addressed W. Va. Code 51-9-10, which authorized per diem payment to senior-status judges and places an annual limit on a senior-status judge's combined per diem compensation and retirement income. In 2019, the legislature amended the statute to specify a rate of per diem payment to senior-status judges on assignment and to create an exception to the annual limit on compensation in extraordinary circumstances. In the instant action, the Treasurer argued that he was entitled to the requested writ of prohibition because the Auditor will violate section 51-9-10 when he issues a warrant for per diem payment to a senior-status judge that is greater than the daily rate of per diem compensation set forth in the statute. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that the petition was not one of the rare proceedings in which this Court must undertake something in the nature of an advisory opinion. View "State ex rel. Perdue v. McCuskey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Public Service Commission of West Virginia (PSC) finding that Trulargo, LLC had been unlawfully operating as a common carrier by motor vehicle and requiring it to cease such activities until it obtains a permit therefore, holding that the PSC did not err by determining Trulargo to be a common carrier and that Trulargo was required to obtain the PSC's approval before engaging in, or continuing, such activities.On appeal, Trulargo argued that the PSC erred by ruling that it was operating as a common carrier and by improperly regulating Trulargo's roll-off container rental business and the costs it charged for such service. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Trulargo's operations constituted those of a common carrier by motor vehicle such that it was required to obtain a certificate of convenience and necessity to continue its activities; and (2) Trulargo's roll-off container rental and retrieval activities were squarely within the definition of a common carrier by motor vehicle, and therefore, the PSC had the authority to regulate Trulargo's business. View "Trulargo, LLC v. Public Service Commission of West Virginia" on Justia Law