Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Petitioner was convicted of receiving or transferring stolen property, daytime burglary, and conspiracy to transfer or receive stolen property. The circuit court entered an order indicating that Petitioner, along with two co-defendants, was jointly and severally liable for restitution in the amount of $46,592. Petitioner appealed, challenging the circuit court’s determination of restitution. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding (1) the circuit court thoroughly evaluated Petitioner’s financial situation in ordering her restitution payment; but (2) because Petitioner’s co-defendants were never held jointly and severally liable with Petitioner, this matter must be remanded for evaluation of the issue of the monetary restitution to be paid by Petitioner. View "State v. Bagent" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of four counts of first degree sexual assault, five counts of first degree sexual abuse, and nine counts of sexual abuse by a person in a position of trust to a child. Petitioner was sentenced to an aggregate term of incarceration of 216 to 705 years and fifty years of supervised release. The Supreme Court affirmed. Petitioner later filed a pro se motion for a writ of habeas corpus asserting twenty-three grounds for relief. the circuit court denied relief. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the circuit court failed to make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law justifying its denial of relief. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court did not comply with the statutory obligation to articulate its reasons for denying Petitioner relief on each of the grounds asserted in his habeas petition. Remanded. View "Watts v. Ballard" on Justia Law

Plaintiff bid on the position “mechanic trainee” at a mine owned by Eastern Associated Coal (Defendant). In July 2012, Plaintiff learned of Defendant’s decision not to hire him. He did not learn until January 2014, however, that the basis for the employment decision may have been his age. Plaintiff instituted a civil action in the circuit court, asserting that Defendant had committed age discrimination in violation of the West Virginia Human Rights Act (HRA). Defendant moved to dismiss the civil action for failure to institute the suit within two years of the alleged discriminatory act underlying Plaintiff’s complaint. The circuit court certified two questions to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court answered (1) for discriminatory hiring causes of action filed pursuant to the HRA, the statute of limitations begins to run from the date that the plaintiff learns of the adverse employment decision; and (2) for discriminatory hiring causes of action filed pursuant to the HRA, the discovery rule does not toll the statute of limitations until the plaintiff discovers the alleged discriminatory motive underlying the employment decision. View "Metz v. Eastern Associated Coal, LLC" on Justia Law

Respondent filed a putative class action alleging that Petitioner had failed to pay him and other similarly situated employees their final wages within the time period mandated by the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act. Respondent served requests upon Petitioners seeking class discovery. Petitioner filed a motion to stay class discovery, arguing that the class discovery was overly broad, unduly burdensome, and premature. The circuit court denied the request to stay class discovery, finding that Petitioner had waived its objections to class discovery, as they were untimely raised, and had further failed to meet its burden of demonstrating why such discovery should not proceed. Petitioner appealed the circuit court’s interlocutory order and invited the Supreme Court to extend the collateral order doctrine to interlocutory discovery orders that implicate case management. The Court, however, chose to consider this matter as a petition for a writ of prohibition, granted the writ, and vacated the order denying Petitioner’s motion to stay class discovery, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion in refusing to stay class discovery pending a ruling on the threshold legal issue of statutory construction that bears on the viability of Respondent’s individual claim. Remanded. View "GMS Mine Repair & Maintenance, Inc. v. Milkos" on Justia Law

Petitioner was indicted on a felony charge of possession of child pornography. Petitioner was initially found not competent to stand trial. Later, the circuit court held a hearing regarding Petitioner’s competency. The court concluded that Petitioner’s alleged crime of attaining and viewing images of children engaged in sexual acts via his computer was a crime involving “an act of violence against a person” within the meaning of W. Va. Code 27-6A-3(h) and ordered that Petitioner remain under its jurisdiction until the expiration of his maximum sentence or until he attained competency and the charges were resolved. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) distributing and exhibiting material depicting minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct is a crime that involves an act of violence against a person within the meaning of section 27-6A-3(h); and (2) therefore the circuit court is justified in maintaining jurisdiction over him pursuant to the statute. View "State v. Riggleman" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, A.N.T. pleaded no contest to discharging a firearm within 500 feet of a dwelling. The magistrate court accepted the plea agreement. Thereafter, A.N.T., who was seeking to obtain an Ohio teaching certificate, petitioned the circuit court to order expungement of her criminal records relating to her criminal conduct. The circuit court ordered expungement, finding that extraordinary circumstances justified expunging A.N.T.’s criminal records. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court had no authority, by statute or its inherent power, to order expungement of A.N.T.’s criminal records. View "In re Petition of A.N.T. for Expungement of Records" on Justia Law

After a joint jury trial, Petitioners, Antwyn Gibbs and Kevin Goodman, were convicted of first degree robbery, entry of a dwelling, and conspiracy to commit a felony. Through these consolidated appeals, Petitioners sought reversal of their convictions and sentencing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to convict Gibbs of first degree robbery; (2) Goodman’s sentence of fifty years incarceration for first degree robbery was proportionate to his crime; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion and took the appropriate factors into consideration in denying Petitioners’ respective motions to sever their trials. View "State v. Gibbs" on Justia Law

In 2010, Renee Richardson-Powers (Powers) was hired to work at an office of the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV). At the time she was hired, Powers did not disclose the existence of a traumatic brain injury she suffered when she was eight years old. Powers’s employment with the DMV was terminated later that year. Powers filed a grievance with regard to her termination. An administrative law judge (ALJ) found in favor of Powers, concluding that Powers demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the DMV breached its duty to provide her with a reasonable accommodation. The Human Rights Commission adopted the decision of the ALJ. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Powers failed to meet the initial burden of demonstrating that she was a “qualified person with a disability.” View "West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles v. Richardson-Powers" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of attempted first degree murder, malicious assault, kidnapping, domestic assault and domestic battery. Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and additional consecutive sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner’s convictions and sentences, holding (1) the circuit court did not err by admitting evidence of a previous domestic violence incident under W. Va. R. Evid. 404(b); (2) the circuit court did not commit err in failing to exclude a late-disclosed Facebook printout and by failing to grant a mistrial after the victim referred to blood on the print during her testimony at trial; (3) the circuit court did not err in denying Petitioner’s motion for a judgment of acquittal regarding attempted first degree murder; (4) the circuit court did not err by failing to dismiss or set aside the kidnapping conviction; and (5) Petitioner's claim that he was denied a fair trial because the jury panel included only one African-American was more appropriately a subject within the scope of a post-conviction habeas corpus proceeding. View "State v. Lewis" on Justia Law

Respondent filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to force the West Virginia Department of Highways, Division of Highways (DOH) to institute a condemnation proceeding for limestone it excavated from a certain parcel of land during its construction of a portion of the Corridor H highway. The mandamus proceeding was resolved through an agreed order whereby the DOH was required to institute a condemnation proceeding against Respondent’s mineral interest in the property. After a jury trial, the circuit court awarded Respondent $941,304.53 as just compensation for the removal of the limestone from the property. The circuit court subsequently determined that Respondent was entitled to attorney’s fees and expenses for both the mandamus proceeding and condemnation proceeding. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) an award of attorney’s fees and expenses was warranted in this case; but (2) the final order was devoid of factual findings regarding the reasonableness of the amount of the attorneys fees and expenses awarded. Remanded for an additional hearing on that issue. View "West Virginia Department of Transportation, Division of Highways v. Newton" on Justia Law