Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Respondent was convicted of one felony count of abduction with intent to defile and one misdemeanor count of battery. Respondent later filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, asserting that his right to a fair trial was violated because he was briefly placed in handcuffs in view of some members of the jury. The circuit court agreed, granted the writ, and vacated Respondent’s convictions. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Respondent being handcuffed in view of “at least some of the jurors” for a brief period of time was not sufficient to establish reversible error, nor grounds for a mistrial. View "Ballard v. Meckling" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Respondent was convicted for sexual abuse in the first degree and sexual abuse by a custodian for his acts involving an eleven-year-old boy. Respondent later filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that his federal and state due process rights were violated because of unfair prejudice resulting from references to him, by the prosecutor and through testimony during trial, as a pedophile. The habeas court granted relief and vacated Respondent’s convictions and sentence, concluding that the testimony constituted inadmissible character evidence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) while the references to pedophilia were improper, the error was harmless; and (2) the State overwhelmingly established Respondent’s guilt of the crimes charged. View "Ballard v. Hunt" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled guilty to one count of sexual assault in the third degree and to possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. Prior to sentencing, Petitioner moved to withdraw his plea on the basis that at the time he accepted the State’s plea offer, he was not advised that his plea subjected him to a potential life sentence as a habitual offender. The circuit court denied the motion. Thereafter, a jury found Petitioner guilty of being a habitual offender, and Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court and prosecuting attorney had no duty to inform Petitioner of enhanced sentencing before Petitioner entered his guilty plea; and (2) therefore, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. View "State v. Keith D." on Justia Law

Tracie Dennis pleaded guilty to embezzlement. The circuit court sentenced Dennis to an indeterminate term of incarceration and directed that the sentence be suspended for a period of probation. While Dennis awaited transfer from the South Central Regional Jail to the Lakin Correctional Facility for women, the circuit court granted Dennis’s motion for work release during her incarceration in the Regional Jail. The work release was granted for period of time between the entry of the order granting work release and the commencement of Dennis’s probation. The Commissioner of the West Virginia Division of Corrections filed a petition for a writ of prohibition challenging the work release order, arguing that, by granting Dennis work release after she had been placed in the Division’s custody, the circuit court exceeded its authority and interfered with the Division’s responsibilities to its inmates and to the public. The Supreme Court denied the Division’s request for relief in prohibition, holding that the circuit court had the authority and the discretion to grant Dennis work release for the purpose of paying restitution. View "State ex rel. Rubenstein v. Hon. Louis H. Bloom" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Petitioner pleaded guilty to first degree felony murder. The circuit court accepted Petitioner’s plea, finding that Petitioner had freely and voluntarily entered his guilty plea with the advice and consultation of competent legal counsel, and sentenced Petitioner to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner’s conviction and sentence, holding (1) Petitioner’s guilty plea to first degree felony murder was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made; and (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a harsher sentence upon Petitioner than the sentences imposed upon his co-defendants. View "State v. Holstein" on Justia Law

In purchasing a vehicle, Robin Hinkle and her former husband purchased GAP Insurance issued by Safe-Guard Products International, LLC (Safe-Guard). The Hinkles were told that the GAP Insurance would relieve them of payment owed on the vehicle if it was declared a total loss as a result of an accident and more was owed for the vehicle than the value assigned to it at the time it was totaled. Robin was later involved in an accident that resulted in her vehicle being declared a total loss. To pay off the balance owed on the vehicle, Robin submitted a claim to Safe-Guard under the GAP Insurance. Safe-Guard denied coverage. Robin subsequently filed this action against Safe-Guard, alleging breach of contract and bad faith. Robin filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether the GAP Insurance constituted insurance under state law for purposes of this litigation. The circuit court granted the motion. Thereafter, Safe-Guard initiated the instant proceeding seeking a writ of prohibition to preclude enforcement of the partial summary judgment order. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that Safe-Guard’s GAP Insurance constituted insurance under the laws of West Virginia. View "State ex rel. Safe-Guard Prods. Int’l LLC v. Hon. Miki Thompson" on Justia Law

Lexon Insurance Company (“Lexon”) issued two performance bonds to DLM, LLC. Both bonds named Berkeley County as the obligee. DLM later defaulted under both bonds. Berkeley County filed this action against Lexon and DLM, seeking “specific performance of the Surety’s obligations according to the terms of the subject bonds” in addition to its costs and expenses. Berkeley County subsequently filed a motion for default judgment, pursuant to W. Va. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1), against Lexon. The circuit court entered default judgment against Lexon for the total face value of the two bonds at issue, plus post judgment interest. The circuit court denied Lexon’s motion to set aside default judgment. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s order denying Lexon’s motion to set aside default judgment, holding (1) because the damages sought in this case were not a “sum certain” as required by Rule 55(b)(1), default judgment was improperly granted under that rule; and (2) default judgment was improperly entered under the unique circumstances of this case where the parties failed to follow the Rules of Civil Procedure pertaining to the extension of the time for filing an answer. View "Lexon Ins. v. County Council of Berkeley County" on Justia Law

An abuse and neglect petition was filed against Mother regarding her two children. Mother stipulated to allegations of abuse and neglect. The circuit court subsequently granted a post-adjudicatory improvement period for Mother. The circuit court later terminated Mother’s parental rights to her children. Mother appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in finding that she left an addiction recovery center early, had not made sufficient progress toward reunification with her children, and had not substantially complied with the family case plan. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that termination of Mother’s parental rights was not warranted in this case, as the circuit court’s findings supporting termination were clearly erroneous. View "In re C.M." on Justia Law

The decedents in this case were long distance drivers for Werner Enterprises. When the tractor-trailer they were driving as a team hit a guardrail and overturned, the tractor-trailer caught on fire, killing the decedents. Werner later disposed of the remains of the tractor-trailer. Plaintiffs, the family of the decedents, filed this lawsuit asserting, among other claims, product liability claims against the manufacturer of the tractor-trailer, Freightliner Corporation, Inc. Plaintiffs alleged alleged that Werner had either negligently or intentionally spoliated evidence, including the tractor-trailer. The circuit court granted summary judgment to Werner, thus dismissing all of Plaintiffs’ claims except the claim concerning whether Werner intentionally spoliated evidence when it disposed of the tractor-trailer. The circuit court eventually entered summary judgment on this claim, concluding that there was no question of material fact as to whether Werner had knowledge of Plaintiffs’ potential civil action when it disposed of the tractor-trailer. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court was correct in granting summary judgment. View "Williams v. Werner Enters., Inc." on Justia Law

The Commissioner of the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles entered an order that administratively revoked Respondent’s driver’s license for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (DUI). The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) reversed the revocation order, concluding that there was insufficient evidence that Respondent was driving while intoxicated and that he was lawfully arrested for DUI. The circuit court affirmed the OAH. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the matter for reinstatement of the Commissioner’s revocation order, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to establish probable cause to arrest Respondent for DUI; and (2) the license revocation in this case was proper. View "Reed v. Hill" on Justia Law