Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner’s convictions for felony escape, destruction of property, and petit larceny and the circuit court’s denial of a new trial, holding that the circuit court committed no reversible error. Specifically, the Court held (1) an individual charged with a felony who escapes from lawful confinement as prescribed in W. Va. Code 61-5-10 may be convicted of the offense of felony escape irrespective of the ultimate outcome of the charge for which he or she was in lawful custody or confinement; (2) the trial court did not err in denying Petitioner’s motion for a new trial as to the escape and destruction of property charges on the basis of newly-discovered evidence; and (3) the circuit court did not commit reversible error in permitting the escape and destruction of property charges to be tried first. View "State v. Allman" on Justia Law

The circuit court abused its discretion in not affording Petitioner a hearing to offer a defense, other than not guilty by reason of mental illness, to the merits of the criminal charges against him pursuant to W. Va. Code 27-6A-6.In 2004, Petitioner was charged with two counts of sexual abuse by a parent, guardian or custodian and two counts of second degree sexual assault. In 2008, the circuit court found that Petitioner was not competent to stand trial and that he would have been convicted of the charges against him. The court determined that it would maintain jurisdiction over Petitioner for forty to ninety years or until Petitioner attained competency, whichever occurred first. In 2016, Petitioner filed the instant motion for a hearing to offer a defense to the merits of the charges brought against him. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the matter for a hearing, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the circuit court erred in denying Petitioner’s request for a hearing to present evidence of a defense to the charges in the criminal indictment against him. View "State v. King" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Petitioner’s convictions for four felony counts of driving under the influence (DUI) causing death, two felony counts of child neglect resulting in death, and three misdemeanors, holding that the trial court’s comments at the beginning of the jury selection process tainted Petitioner’s presumption of innocence and deprived him of a fair trial.In this case involving multiple casualties, the trial court informed the jury pool that Petitioner decided to plead guilty and that he “probably did everyone a favor by doing the plea. It was a pretty tragic case.” The court later repeated this sentiment. The Supreme Court held that the trial court expressed its opinion on a material matter at trial - that of Petitioner’s guilt - and once Petitioner decided to reject the plea deal and proceed to trial, this jury pool was irrevocably tainted with the knowledge that Petitioner was willing to plead guilty in this case. View "State v. Thompson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the sentencing order of the circuit court imposing an effective sentence of sixteen to thirty-eight years and denying Petitioner’s request for credit for time served on home incarceration as a condition of pretrial bail on the basis that Petitioner benefited from his plea bargain with the State.Petitioner pleaded guilty to sexual abuse by a parent, incest, and attempt to commit a felony. Petitioner appealed his sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) in accordance with State v. Hughes, 476 S.E.2d 189 (1996), the circuit court properly refused to grant Petitioner credit for time served on home incarceration; and (2) Petitioner’s argument that his sentence was disproportionate to the nature of the offense because he was denied credit for time served on home incarceration was without merit. View "State v. Jedediah C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court affirming a decision of the Board of Review of Workforce West Virginia that granted twenty-five Verizon employees ("claimants") unemployment compensation benefits for a period of time during which they were on strike. The Court held that that claimants were disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits under W. Va. Code 21A-6-3(4) because (1) the phrase “factory, establishment or other premises at which he or she was last employed” in section 21A-6-3(4) means the distinct geographical location where the claimant was last employed prior to the labor dispute; (2) the lower tribunals erred in the instant case by considering Verizon’s nationwide operations to determine whether a “work stoppage” occurred during the strike at issue; and (3) a “work stoppage” occurred at Verizon’s Clarksburg facility during the labor dispute, which disqualified the claimants for benefits under the statute. View "Verizon Services Corp. v. Board of Review of Workforce West Virginia" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court denying Defendant’s post-trial motions following an adverse jury verdict in this “deliberate intention” action.The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs in this personal injury action, finding that Defendant acted with “deliberate intent.” Defendant filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and, alternatively, a motion for a new trial and a motion to alter or amend the judgment. The trial court denied the motions. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to satisfy all of the statutory requirements for a “deliberate intention” claim. View "FirstEnergy Generation, LLC v. Muto" on Justia Law

A condition of parole prohibiting Respondent, a registered sex offender, from possessing or having contact with a computer or other device with internet access was unconstitutional under the First Amendment.Respondent challenged the West Virginia Parole Board’s decision to revoke his parole. The circuit court vacated the Board’s decision, partly on the ground that Respondent’s special condition of parole prohibiting his possession or contact with a computer with internet access was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Respondent’s condition of parole was broader than the statute struck down in Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S.Ct. 1730 (2017), which barred registered sex offenders from accessing social media networking websites, it was an overboard restriction of free speech in violation of the First Amendment. View "Mutter v. Ross" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court granting Plaintiff’s petition for declaratory judgment. In the order, the circuit court ruled that Erie Insurance Property and Casualty Company was required to provide Plaintiff, Erie’s insured, with the statutory minimum amount of uninsured motorist coverage for an ATV that Plaintiff was towing when he was struck by an at-fault, uninsured motorist. The Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court correctly granted declaratory judgment in favor of Plaintiff on the coverage issue; and (2) Erie’s challenge to the circuit court’s order denying its motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s separate claims for common law bad faith and violation of the Unfair Trade Practices Act was an interlocutory matter and not subject to appeal at this time. View "Erie Insurance Co. v. Dolly" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied the writ of prohibition sought by Southland Properties LLC against the circuit court for denying Southland’s alleged right to intervene in an action instituted under W. Va. Code 11A-3-60 (section 60 proceedings) by Kenneth Jones. Jones sought to compel the Deputy Commissioner of Delinquent and Nonentered Lands of Marion County to deliver deeds to two tracts of land Jones purchased at a tax sale. The Deputy Commissioner declined to issue the deeds to Jones because the statutory timeframe for issuance of the deeds following the tax sale had passed. Southland, which owned the properties at issue and failed to pay property taxes for several years, moved to intervene in the section 60 proceeding on the grounds that it was an indispensable party. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s denial of Southland’s motion to intervene, holding that Southland was not an indispensable party to the section 60 proceedings because Southland made no attempt to redeem and its ownership interest as a delinquent taxpayer was predicated on redemption. View "State ex rel. Southland Properties, LLC v. Honorable David R. Janes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions for accessory to murder and conspiracy to commit murder and his sentence to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, holding that none of Defendant’s assignments of error warranted reversal. Specifically, the Court held (1) the circuit court’s refusal to grant Defendant’s third motion for a continuance did not result in prejudice to Defendant; (2) the circuit court did not err by refusing to grant a discovery violation against the State; (3) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by admitting autopsy photographs of the victim; and (4) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by declining to instruct the jury on the lesser included offenses of first degree murder. View "State v. Richardson" on Justia Law