Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the circuit court declaring Respondent as the owner in fee of all of the property and appurtenances of the property in dispute in this case, holding that the circuit court did not err in granting title of the disputed property to Respondent.Respondent filed a complaint against Petitioners, who were the guardians and conservators for their father, alleging that the father had conveyed title to the disputed property to him by a deed that was never recorded, that Respondent had title under a claim of adverse possession, and that Petitioners were unjustly enriched by the improvements Respondent built upon the land. After a bench trial, the circuit court declared that Respondent was the owner in fee of the disputed property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in its factual findings or conclusions of law in regard to Respondent's right to title in the disputed property based on the deed between the father and Respondent that was later lost or stolen. View "Sandy M. v. Donald M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders entered by the circuit court granting summary judgment to Defendants in the underlying action brought after investigators identified unsafe, non-sterile injection techniques, holding that the circuit court did not err.Plaintiffs, a pain management clinic and its physician, brought the underlying action alleging that the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, West Virginia Bureau for Public Health, and its former Commissioner and State Health Officer (collectively, the DHHR Defendants) breached their duty of confidentiality when they issued a press release announcing that Defendants used unsafe injection practices and encouraging Plaintiffs' patients to be tested for bloodborne illnesses. Plaintiffs also sued the West Virginia Board of Ostseopathic Medicine and its executive director (together, the BOM Defendants), asserting a due process claim for failing to timely provide a hearing after their summary suspension of the physician's medical license. The circuit court concluded that the DHHR defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and that the claim against the BOM defendants was barred by res judicata. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the circuit court's judgment. View "Chalifoux v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Resources" on Justia Law