Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner was convicted of first degree felony murder, robbery, and other offenses. Petitioner was sentenced to life with mercy for the murder offense. The Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner’s convictions. Petitioner later filed a pro se habeas petition alleging several grounds for relief. The habeas court granted in part and denied in part Petitioner’s habeas petition, concluding (1) Petitioner failed to prove that he received ineffective assistance or that false evidence had been presented by the State at trial, but (2) Petitioner proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he had been improperly sentenced to an additional forty years on his robbery offense because robbery was a lesser-included offense to the first degree felony murder charge. The habeas court then dismissed the robbery conviction. On appeal, both Petitioner and the State assigned error to the habeas court’s rulings. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to habeas relief, and the habeas court erred in dismissing Petitioner’s robbery conviction. The court remanded the matter with instructions to reinstate Petitioner’s conviction and sentence for robbery on the terms imposed by the trial court. View "Flack v. Ballard" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of one count of embezzlement. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred by (1) not granting his motions for judgment of acquittal because the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his conviction, and (2) not granting his motion for a mistrial after the prosecuting attorney made improper remarks during closing arguments. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State presented sufficient evidence to support Petitioner’s conviction and therefore did not err by denying Petitioner’s motions for judgment of acquittal; and (2) the prosecutor’s remarks were not clearly prejudicial and did not result in manifest injustice, and therefore, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying Petitioner’s motion for a mistrial. View "State v. Berry" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the third offense provision contained in W. Va. Code 61-8-5(b) is ambiguous. Therefore, the rule of lenity applies, requiring the court to strictly construe the statute against the State and in favor of Defendant, who was charged with third offense of soliciting an act of prostitution in violation of section 61-8-5(b). The circuit court rejected Defendant’s argument that the third offense provision does not apply to an alleged prostitute but, rather, applies only to third parties who derive a financial benefit from the earnings of a prostitute. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the third or subsequent felony offense provision only applies to third parties who financially benefit from the earnings of a prostitute. Therefore, the circuit court erred by denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment. View "State v. Fuller" on Justia Law

The State appealed the circuit court’s order dismissing two counts of an indictment returned against Defendant charging Defendant with criminal civil rights violations under W. Va. Code 61-6-21(b), arguing that the circuit court erred in determining that the word “sex” in section 61-6-21(b) could not be expanded to include “sexual orientation.” The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the word “sex” in section 61-6-21(b) is unambiguous and does not include “sexual orientation”; and (2) this Court’s exercise of discretion under W. Va. R. App. P. 17 in refusing to docket a certified question presented to this Court under W. Va. Code 58-5-2 is neither an express nor an implicit ruling on the merits of the legal issue presented therein, and thereafter, the circuit court may take such action and make such rulings in the matter as it deems appropriate. View "State v. Butler" on Justia Law

Shane Marcum, who was being held on felony charges, allegedly sustained injuries during a cell extraction. Marcum filed a civil action against the West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority (the Regional Jail). The proceeding was removed to federal court. During the federal court proceeding, Marcum requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, a copy of a videotape that recorded his cell extraction. The Regional Jail refused to turn over the videotape, arguing that it was exempt under W. Va. Code 29B-1-4(a)(2) and (19). Marcum then filed a complaint for preliminary injunction and declaratory relief against the Regional Jail seeking a court order requiring the regional Jail to produce the cell extraction videotape. The circuit court entered an order requiring the Regional Jail to turn over the videotape to Marcum. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) pursuant to section 29B-1-4(a)(19), disclosure of a videotape of the cell extraction of an inmate is prohibited; and (2) therefore, the circuit court committed clear error in ordering the disclosure of the cell extraction videotape. View "W. Va. Regional Jail & Correctional Facility v. Marcum" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder. The jury refused to recommend murder, and the circuit court sentenced Petitioner to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s motion for a change of the trial venue; (2) the circuit court did not commit reversible error by denying Petitioner’s motion to present evidence of the victim’s prior bad acts pursuant to W. Va. R. Evid. 404(b); and (3) there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to prove that the murder was premeditated. View "State v. Zuccaro" on Justia Law

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

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