Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Petitioner's motion to reduce her sentence pursuant to W. Va. R. Crim. P. 35(b), holding that the circuit court properly denied the motion as untimely.Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate W. Va. Code 61-5-8(g)(1) and one count of accepting a bribe in violation of W. Va. Code 61-5A-3. Petitioner later filed a first and then a second motion to reduce her sentence pursuant to Rule 35(b). The circuit court denied the first motion on the merits and found that her second motion was not timely. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the circuit court's ruling that Petitioner's second motion seeking to reduce her sentence was not timely because it was filed more than 120 days after her sentencing hearing. View "State v. Keefer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the circuit court finding that Petitioner was not competent to stand trial for his alleged crimes, holding that the circuit court did not err.Petitioner was indicted on two counts of soliciting a minor via a computer and one count of use of obscene matter with intent to seduce a minor. After two experts evaluated Petitioner the circuit court determined that Petitioner was not competent to stand trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in regarding to Petitioner's competency determination pursuant to W. Va. Code 27-6A-3. View "State v. Weister" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the adjudicatory and dispositional orders of the circuit court in this termination of parental rights case, holding that the circuit court erred when it terminated Father's parental rights because Father did not receive proper notice of the hearing at which he was purportedly adjudicated.The circuit court terminated Father's parental rights for allegedly abandoning his infant son. Father proposed two assignments of error claiming that he was denied an adjudicatory hearing for a determination whether the child had been abuse and/or neglected as alleged. The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's order, holding (1) Father did not receive proper notice that the hearing at issue was an adjudicatory hearing from him, and without such notice, Father was not provided due process; and (2) without first holding an adjudicatory hearing, the circuit court could not lawfully proceed to disposition and termination of Father's parental rights. View "In re A.G." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner's conviction of one count of death of a child by a parent, custodian, or guardian by child abuse but reversed the determinate sentence of one hundred years imposed by the circuit court and remanded the matter for resentencing, holding that the circuit court erred in part.On appeal, Petitioner challenged the circuit court's ruling that W. Va. Code 61-8D-2a(c) permits the imposition of a determinate sentence within a range of fifteen years to life. The Supreme Court reversed Petitioner's sentence, holding that the 2017 amendment to the statute established an indeterminate sentence. The Court remanded the case for the circuit court to impose an indeterminate sentence as statutorily required. View "State v. Tusing" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court sentencing Defendant to life in prison without mercy for his first-degree murder conviction and terms of imprisonment for his remaining convictions, holding that the circuit court committed reversible error during Defendant's jury trial.On appeal, Defendant argued that the circuit court reversibly erred when it dismissed a member of the jury after deliberations began and replaced that juror with an alternate who had been discharged from the case rather than granting a mistrial. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed Defendant's conviction and the sentencing orders, holding that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Defendant's motion for a mistrial. View "State v. Sheffield" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the sentencing order of the circuit court in this criminal case, holding that Defendant's right to be present at the imposition of his sentence was violated and that this violation was not harmless error.Defendant pled guilty to three counts of failure to register as a sex offender and one count of fleeing from an officer. During the sentencing hearing, Defendant and his counsel participated by video conference. On appeal, Defendant argued that the circuit court impermissibly failed to allow him to be physically present for his sentencing hearing, in violation of W. Va. R. Crim. P. 62-3-2, W. Va. R. Crim. P. 43 and both the West Virginia and United States Constitutions. The Supreme Court vacated the sentencing order, holding (1) Defendant's right to be present at the imposition of his sentence was violated; and (2) under the circumstances of this case, the error was not harmless. View "State v. Byers" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Defendant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying the petition.Defendant was convicted of first-degree robbery, conspiracy, and entry of a dwelling. In his habeas petition, Defendant alleged that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance and that the State violated his constitutional rights by presenting false testimony. The circuit court denied the habeas petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to prove ineffective assistance of counsel and that Defendant's second assignment of error lacked merit. View "Goodman v. Searls" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court sentencing Petitioner to an indeterminate term of incarceration rather than a determinate term under W. Va. Code 61-3C-14b(b) in connection with his conviction of solicitation of a minor, holding that that Petitioner's due process rights were not violated by the imposition of the corrected sentence.Petitioner pled guilty to one count of solicitation of a minor. Upon sentencing, the circuit court misread the statute and erroneously sentenced Petitioner to an indeterminate term of incarceration rather than a determinate term. The Supreme Court reversed the sentencing order. On remand, the circuit court imposed a sentence within the parameters of the statute. On appeal, Petitioner argued that the circuit court imposed a more severe sentence than the one originally imposed in violation of his constitutional right to due process. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a circuit court does not violate a defendant’s due process right to appeal when it corrects a sentence that is void ab initio by imposing a more severe punishment that comports with the penalty provided for in the applicable statute. View "State v. Riffle" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Petitioner's conviction for first-degree murder and sentence of life imprisonment, holding that the circuit court erred in its determination that evidence regarding Petitioner's conviction for another murder was admissible at his trial pursuant to W. Va. R. Evid. 404(b).On review of Petitioner's convictions, the Supreme Court concluded that an incomplete record did not allow for a determination of whether Petitioner's right to a speedy trial had been violated. On remand, the circuit court ruled that Petitioner's right to a speedy trial was not violated. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded this case for a new trial, holding that the circuit court erred in admitting the 404(b) evidence and that a limiting instruction given to the jury was not effective to preclude prejudice as a result of the error. View "State v. Combs" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered in the affirmative two questions certified by the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, holding that there is no separate cause of action for excessive force by police officers during the course of arrest within the plain language of W. Va. Const. Art. III, 10.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) West Virginia applies to its constitution the rule established in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), and United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (1997), which requires a constitutional claim that is covered by a specific constitutional provision to be analyzed under the standard specific to that provision and not under substantive due process; and (2) in light of Fields v. Mellinger, 851 S.E.2d 789 (W. Va. 2020), a claim for excessive force by police officers brought under W. Va. Const. art. III, 10 is redundant to a claim brought under Article III, Section 6. View "Stepp v. Cottrell" on Justia Law