1. In the Matter of: Chantal D. And Tamara D., No. 012030 (Filed 9-26-01)

The father appeals the June 16, 2001 circuit court order, claiming the circuit court erred in terminating the father’s parental rights absent clear and convincing evidence of abuse and neglect on the part of the father.

2. Becky L. Goundry v. Sara Wetzel-Saffle M.D., No. 011142 (Filed 6-11-01)

Goundry appeals the circuit court order granting summary judgement in favor of the defendant, Wetzel-Saffle, in Goundry’s civil action seeking damages based on Defendant’s negligence in failing to diagnose and treat Goundry’s pregnancy. Goundry claims that the court below erred in finding that because the plaintiff did not have an expert to establish the standard of care, then she had failed to establish a prima facie case of professional liability.

(Davis, J., Maynard, J.)

3. Kenneth Barr v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., an Illinois corporation, No. 011148 (Filed 6-12-01)

Barr appeals the circuit court order granting State Farm’s motion to dismiss, claiming that the court below erred in that 1) State Farm’s denial of Barr’s claim is contrary to statute; 2) State Farm waived subrogation and consented to settlement; 3) case law precedent does not support dismissal of Barr’s claim; and 4) public policy does not support dismissal of Barr’s claim.

(McGraw, C. J.)

4. SER David Hubbard v. Howard Painter, Warden, No. 003020 (Filed 11-27-00)

Hubbard appeals the circuit court order denying his Rule 35 Motion for Reduction of Sentence and re-sentencing him to a longer term. Hubbard claims that the court below erred in that the record supports that the Rule 35 motion was timely filed and in denying him due process by re-sentencing him to a sentence different than the one the court announced in December, 1997, and upon which the petitioner had relied for two and one half years.

Remand for correction of sentencing order to reach the stated goalof 22-330 years by running counts 1 through 6 concurrently.

(Davis, J. would refuse)

5. State of West Virginia v. James A. Lucas, No. 011129 (Filed 6-7-01)

Defendant appeals circuit court order sentencing him to not less than fifteen (15) years and not more than thirty-five (35) years for each of Count I and II for 1st degree sexual assault (victim 11 years old or less); sentencing him to not less five (5) nor more than fifteen (15) on Count III for sexual abuse by a parent, guardian or custodian and no less than (10) nor more than twenty (20) on Count IV for sexual abuse by a parent, guardian or custodian; on Count V and VI for incest for not less than five (5) years nor more than fifteen (15) years, sentences to run consecutively based upon the jury verdict of guilty of two counts of 1st degree sexual assault, two counts of sexual abuse by a parent, guardian, or custodian and two counts of incest.

6. Tamela McClung v. Calvin Lafferty, No. 010592 (Filed 3-26-01)

The Bureau of Child Support appeals circuit court’s order enforcing oral settlement of child support obligations.

7. In the Matter of Kristen B., No. 012045 (Filed 9-28-01)

Mother appeals termination of her parental rights to Kristen B., now 15 months old, asserting that the circuit court erred 1) by failing to dismiss the abuse and neglect petition; and 2) by denying the mother an improvement period. Mother argues that the circuit court should have dismissed the petition as DHHR could not substantiate the primary basis for the removal of the child which was neglect due to missed doctor’s appointments; many of the child’s doctor appointments were not kept because the child was hospitalized and therefore, could not attend the scheduled appointments. Mother argues that this situation constitutes an improper basis for neglect finding. Mother also argues that she was denied an improvement period despite the fact that she had shown that she could improve the conditions set forth in the petition.

8. In the Matter of Mary Elizabeth S., No. 012041 ( Mother’s petition) (Filed 9-28-01)

Mother appeals the termination of her parental right to her three daughters, Mary Elizabeth, now 13, Kathy, now 11, and Linda, now 8. Issues include: 1) whether the circuit court erred in not giving mother an adjudicatory hearing and finding that she was an abusing and/or neglecting parent based upon a stipulated disposition by the children’s father; 2) whether the circuit court erred in not granting Linda Johnson non-custodial visitation rights; and 3) whether the circuit court erred in taking over fifteen months to make a decision following the dispositional hearing.

9. In the Matter of Mary Elizabeth S., No. 012034 ( Father’s petition) (Filed 9-27-01)

Father appeals the termination of his parental right to his three daughters, Mary Elizabeth, now 13, Kathy, now 11, and Linda, now 8. Issues include: 1) whether the circuit court erred by failing to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in writing or on the record within ten (10) days of the conclusion of the dispositional hearing, as required by Rule 36 (a) of the West Virginia Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect cases; and 2) whether the circuit court erred by abusing its discretion in finding that the adult respondent/father neglected his children within the meaning of W.Va. Code§ 49-1-3 and as a result terminated his parental rights.

10. In the Matter of Natasha H. and Robert G. No. 012013 (mother’s petition) (Filed 9-25-01)

Mother appeals termination of parental rights to her children, Natasha H., now 2 and a half years old, and Robert G., now 15 months. Mother argues that the circuit court erred in terminating her rights as 1) she was denied a meaningful improvement period based upon the hostility and mistrust which existed between the mother and the personnel involved in providing services; and 2) Natasha H’s physical well-being was not in imminent danger at the time of the removal, rendering her removal improper and 3) there were reasonable available alternatives to the removal of the children.

11. In the Matter of Natasha H. and Robert G., No 012012 (father’s petition) (Filed 9-25-01)

Father appeals termination of parental rights to his children, Natasha H., now 2 and a half years old, and Robert G., now 15 months. Father argues that the circuit court erred in terminating his rights as 1) father was denied a meaningful improvement period based upon the hostility and mistrust which existed between the father and the personnel involved in providing services; and 2) the children’s physical well-being was not in imminent danger at the time of the removal, rendering their removal improper and 3) there were reasonable available alternatives to the removal of the children.

12. State of West Virginia v. Benny Bryant Gray, No. 011157 (Filed 6-13-01)

Defendant appeals circuit court’s order sentencing him to serve concurrent sentences of one (1) year in the Southern Regional Jail for Count II of the indictment and one (1) year for Count IV based upon the jury’s verdict convicting him of petit larceny, with credit of 114 days for time served. The defendant also argues that the circuit court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial. Issues include: 1) whether the circuit court erred in foreclosing inquiry into witness Larry Hodges’ dismissed charges; and 2) whether the jury’s verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence.

13. Wayne Butler v. Rose Butler, No. 010850 (Filed 5-10-01)

Wayne Butler, plaintiff in this divorce action, seeks review of the circuit court’s order affirming the findings and conclusions of the Family Law Master on the issues of permanent alimony and distribution of marital assets. Issues include: 1) whether the Family Law Master erred in awarding the respondent permanent alimony; and 2) whether the Family Law Master erred in distribution of the marital estate.

14. David M. Ross v. Heidi S. Ross, No. 010914 (Filed 5-21-01)

Father appeals circuit court’s order denying his exceptions to the Family Law Master’s ruling that Alaska has proper jurisdiction over this custody action involving the parties’ four year old daughter. Father argues that West Virginia has jurisdiction over the custody issue.

15. SER David Shanholtz v. Howard Painter-Warden, No. 010968 (Filed 5-16-01)

Shanholtz, pro se, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in which he asserts the following assignments of error: (1) Ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) Denial of the Constitutional right to appeal his guilty plea.

16. SER Samuel R. Anstey v. Charles Vickers-Judge, Paul M. Blake, (Prosecuting Attorney), and Thelma M. Kincaid, (Clerk) No. 002555 (Filed 11-2-00)

This is a Writ of Mandamus in which prisoner Samuel R. Anstey seeks to prohibit the Respondents from taking money from his inmate account, and seeks to compel the return of $403.55 from his inmate account.

17. SER Donald W. Myers v. WV Board of Probation and Parole, No. 010952 (Filed 5-11-01)

Myers filed a Writ of Mandamus seeking to compel this Court to issue an Order reversing the Parole Board’s decision to deny Myers parole.

18. SER Michael A. Williams v. William Haines-Warden, No. 010840 (Filed 8-27-01)

Williams filed a Writ of Mandamus seeking a ruling on a pending motion filed on 3/16/01. Williams asserts that his Due Process Rights have been violated by the Mercer County Circuit Court’s delay in responding to the pending motion.

Deferred

 

19. SER Dana D. Smith v. Herman Canady-Judge, No. 010811 (Filed 5-4-01)

Petitioner Smith, pro se, filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus seeking to compel Judge Canady to schedule an omnibus habeas corpus hearing or to enter a final order granting or denying a new trial in petitioner’s case.

Grant 5-0

unless sooner mooted

 

20. SER Samuel P. Moore v. Boone County Circuit Court, No. 010599 (Filed 3-22-01)

Moore, filing pro se, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the Circuit Court of Boone County to act on his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in case no. 96-C-31 filed on 3/4/96.

Grant 5-0

unless sooner mooted

 

21. SER Kevin Ray Cain v. Edward Rudloff-Administrator, No. 010921 (Filed 5-21-01)

Cain, pro se, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in which he asserted the following assignments of error: (1) The Parole Board violated Petitioner’s due process rights by not allowing petitioner to appear in person and to show the Parole Board documentation from his rehabilitative courses; (2) The Parole Board arbitrarily and capriciously denied petitioner’s request for parole; (3) The Parole Board failed to provide petitioner with a written statement explaining why he was denied parole.

Refuse 5-0

 

22. State of WV v. Gregory Mitchell, No. 010948 (Filed 5-23-01)

Mitchell filed a criminal appeal in which he requests that this Court set aside and vacate both of his sentences. Mitchell asserts that he was not given credit for time served while on probation for Case No. 98-F-46-H and was not given credit for time while incarcerated and waiting to be sentenced under Case No. 00-F-142.

Refuse 5-0

 

23. SER Kenneth Spade v. Mark Williamson-Warden, No. 010998 (Filed 5-25-01)

Spade filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in which he asserts that he is great fear of mental and physical harm from the officers at Denmar Correctional Center. Petitioner asserts that he has been subject to continual harassment and retaliation from several officers.

Refuse 5-0

 

24. In the Matter of Christine S. And Austin S., No. 011984 (Filed 9-25-01)

Mother seeks reversal of the termination of her parental rights. Mother asserts the following assignments of error: (1) The lower court erred in failing to grant the petitioner an improvement period; (2) The lower court erred in terminating the petitioner’s parental rights in that the petitioner did show that there was a reasonable likelihood that the conditions of neglect and abuse suffered by her children can be substantially corrected in the near future; (3) The lower court erred by based the termination of the petitioner’s parental rights on clearly erroneous findings of fact and conclusions of law; (4) The lower court erred in failing to grant the subject children post-termination visitation with their mother, given the strong emotional bond which exists between these children and their mother and given the realities of the Dispositional order that the court made.

Refuse 5-0

25. SER Kenny D. Sayre v. Howard Painter-Warden, No. 011400 (Filed 7-9-01)

Sayre filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in which he asserts the following: Ineffective assistance of counsel during the closing argument based upon the introduction of newly discovered evidence in Case No. 97-F-132-1.

Refuse 5-0

 

26. SER Kenny D. Sayre v. Howard Painter-Warden, No. 011683 (Filed 8-1-01)

Sayre filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in which he asserts the following assignments of error: (1) The circuit court erred by allowing two letters into evidence by failing to have an in camera hearing; and (2) Ineffective assistance of counsel.

Refuse 5-0

 

27. SER Kenny D. Sayre v. Howard Painter-Warden, No. 010960 (Filed 5-24-01)

Sayre filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in which he asserts the following assignments of error: (1) Petitioner was denied a Pre-Trial Mental Evaluation; and (2) Petitioner was denied the right to a Competency Hearing.

Refuse 5-0

28. SER Patricia Aldridge v. William Bowman-Administrator, No. 011001 (Filed 5-14-01)

Petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus asserting the following assignments of error: (1) Failure of the prosecutor to disclose evidence favorable to petitioner’s case; (2) Denial of effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal; (3) Denial of equal protection under the law; (4) Petitioner has been subjected to cruel, unusual and excessive punishment; (5) Petitioner’s trial was not fair and impartial; (6) The circuit court should not have permitted the media to be present during the course of the preliminary hearing and trial; (7) Suppression of helpful evidence by the prosecutor; (8) The State knowingly used perjured testimony; (9) The indictment contains defects; (10) Petitioner was not provided a copy of the indictment; (11) The circuit court was incorrect in denying a change of venue; (12) Use of informants who provided false testimony after receiving plea agreements in exchange for their testimony; (13) Constitutional errors in evidentiary rulings; (14) Jury instructions were incomplete and inadequate; (15) Insufficient evidence to convict; (16) Improper statement made by the prosecutor.

Returnable below for omnibus habeas corpus hearing.

(Davis, J., Maynard, J. would refuse)

29. SER Miquel Quinones v. Paul Kirby-Commissioner, No. 010907 (Filed 5-18-01)

Petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus seeking to compel this Court to order the Commissioner to credit him with time served prior to sentencing on his Second Degree Murder charge.

Refuse 5-0

30. SER Allen Johnson v. Hancock County Circuit Clerk, No. 012221 (Filed 10-24-01)

Johnson filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus seeking to compel this Court to order the circuit clerk of Hancock County to provide Johnson with a copy of his trial transcripts. Johnson’s appeal period runs out on November 31, 2001 and he needs the requested transcripts in order to prepare an adequate Petition for Appeal.

Refuse as Moot

 

31. State of WV v. William M. Dennis, No. 011183 (Filed 6-5-01)

Dennis filed a Rule 35 Motion for Reduction of Sentence with this Court. Dennis asserts that his 1-10 year sentence for Breaking and Entering should be reduced or suspended because he has successfully completed several rehabilitation classes, the Division of Corrections is overcrowded and Dennis wishes to enroll at Fairmont State College.

Refuse 5-0

32. SER Steve Testerman, et al. v. WV Regional Jail & Correctional Authority, et. al., No. 010835 (Filed 5-2-01)

Petitioners style their action as a Writ of Mandamus and request that this Court issue an Order correcting various problems at the Southern Regional Jail and Correctional Facility.

Refuse as Moot

 

33. SER Clinton Ratliff v. Howard Painter-Warden, No. 010966 (Filed 5-17-01)

Petitioner filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus in which he alleges the following assignments of error: (1) Ineffective Assistance of Counsel at trial and on appeal; (2) Ineffective assistance of counsel by habeas corpus attorney; (3) Denial of due process; (4) Arbitrary refusal of both direct appeal and habeas corpus appeal; (5) Judicial bias in evidentiary rulings; (6) Denial of a fair trial, habeas corpus hearing and both appeals.

Refuse 5-0

34. SER James A. Lucus v. Fred Fox-Judge, No. 010922 (Filed 5-15-01)

Lucus, pro se, filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus seeking to compel this Court to order the Marion County Circuit Court to permit Lucus to testify before the Marion County Grand Jury in order to obtain an indictment against Ms. Doris James, the chief investigating officer in the case of State v. Lucus, No. 99-F-190, for perjury. Ms. James was the sole witness to testify against Petitioner during Marion County Grand Jury Proceedings which led to Petitioner’s indictment charge of 1st Degree Sexual Assault, Sexual Abuse by a parent and Incest based upon allegations that he molested his stepdaughter.

Refuse 5-0