State v. Wright
Decision Date | 10 July 1997 |
Docket Number | No. 23741,23741 |
Citation | 200 W.Va. 549,490 S.E.2d 636 |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Appellee, v. Robert Jack WRIGHT, Defendant Below, Appellant. |
Syllabus by the Court
1. " Syllabus Point 2, State v. Gill, 187 W.Va. 136, 416 S.E.2d 253 (1992).
2. "[A] double jeopardy claim ... [is] reviewed de novo." Syllabus Point 1, in part, State v. Sears, 196 W.Va. 71, 468 S.E.2d 324 (1996).
3. Syllabus Point 8, State v. Gill, 187 W.Va. 136, 416 S.E.2d 253 (1992).
4. Syllabus Point 4, State v. Gill, 187 W.Va. 136, 416 S.E.2d 253 (1992).
5. " Syllabus Point 1, State v. Neider, 170 W.Va. 662, 295 S.E.2d 902 (1982).
6. Syllabus Point 1, State v. Guthrie, 194 W.Va. 657, 461 S.E.2d 163 (1995).
Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Attorney General Victor S. Woods, Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, for Appellee.
Daniel R. James, Barr & James, Keyser, for Appellant.
Robert Jack Wright appeals his convictions of malicious assault ( W. Va.Code, 61-2-9(a) [1978] ), attempted murder ( W.Va.Code, 61-2-1 [1991] and 61-11-8(1) [1994] ) and wanton endangerment with a firearm ( W.Va.Code, 61-7-12 [1994] ). Mr. Wright was convicted of the three crimes after a bench trial in the Circuit Court of Hampshire County and his sentence was based on his three convictions. On appeal, Mr. Wright alleges the following assignments of error: (1) the principles of double jeopardy were violated by his convictions of wanton endangerment and malicious assault because, in this case, both convictions are based on one act involving the use of a firearm; (2) venue was not established; and (3) the evidence presented by the State was insufficient to support his convictions. Although the State confesses error on the double jeopardy issue, the State maintains the other assignments of error are without merit. Based on our review of the record, we find no merit in Mr. Wright's assignments of error concerning venue and insufficient evidence, but we agree with the parties that the double jeopardy prohibition was violated in this case. Because of our holdings, we affirm, in part, reverse, in part and remand this case for re-sentencing consistent with this opinion.
On the evening of May 10, 1995, Mr. Wright shot and wounded Paul Grigg, an acquaintance of Mr. Wright. The victim was shot with a .38 caliber derringer outside the victim's residence in the town of Romney, the county seat of Hampshire County. The circumstances leading to the shooting were disputed.
Mr. Wright maintains that he went to the victim's home in order to give the victim, who was his friend, a gun as a wedding present. Apparently Mr. Grigg was engaged to marry a former girlfriend of Mr. Wright. Mr. Wright testified that he had no problem with the new couple, and the victim testified that until the day of the shooting, he was unaware of any problem. According to Mr. Wright, as he pulled the gun from his front pants' pocket to show to the victim, the gun accidentally discharged injuring the victim.
According to the victim, he first met Mr. Wright several weeks earlier at the local American Legion Post. The victim testified that on May 10, 1995, Mr. Wright telephoned him and said, About an hour after the telephone call, Mr. Wright appeared at the victim's residence. The victim stepped outside his home, and the two men walked about 15 to 25 feet toward Mr. Wright's car. The victim testified that Mr. Wright was angry with him and gave the following description of the conversation leading to the shooting:
The victim testified that he thought Mr. Wright was trying to kill him. Mr. Wright testified that the shot went off when Mr. Wright thought the gun malfunctioned and accidentally discharged when his "finger brushed against the trigger" while the gun was in the half-cocked safety position.
Clarence Lane, the State's firearm expert, testified that the gun was in good working order and that "this particular gun won't go off in a half-cocked position."
Mr. Wright was indicted on three counts: malicious assault, attempted murder, and wanton endangerment. After Mr. Wright waived his right to a jury trial, a bench trial was held in the Hampshire County Circuit Court. The circuit court found Mr. Wright guilty on all counts and sentenced him to serve two to ten years for malicious assault and one to five years for attempted murder with these sentences to run consecutively, and to serve one to five years for wanton endangerment, with this sentence to run concurrently with the other two.
Mr. Wright appealed to this Court alleging: (1) the double jeopardy prohibition applies to his convictions and punishments for both malicious assault and wanton endangerment; (2) venue was not established; and (3) the evidence was not sufficient to support his convictions.
Syllabus Point 1, Conner v. Griffith, 160 W.Va. 680, 238 S.E.2d 529 (1977). Accord Syllabus Point 5, State v. Johnson, 197 W.Va. 575, 476 S.E.2d 522 (1996); Syllabus Point 7, State v. Broughton, 196 W.Va. 281, 470 S.E.2d 413 (1996); Syllabus Point 2, State v. Gill, 187 W.Va. 136, 416 S.E.2d 253 (1992). Article III, § 5 of the W.Va. Const. states, in pertinent part: "[N]or shall any person, in any criminal case ... be twice put in jeopardy of life or liberty for the same offence."
We review de novo claims regarding the double jeopardy prohibition. Syllabus Point 1, in part, State v. Sears, 196 W.Va. 71, 468 S.E.2d 324 (1996) states that "a double jeopardy claim ... [is] reviewed de novo."
In this case, Mr. Wright claims his convictions for wanton endangerment 1 and malicious assault 2 are predicated upon a single gunshot, which makes wanton endangerment a lesser-included offense of malicious assault. 3 In its brief, the State conceded "that the Defendant cannot be punished for both crimes."
In State v. Gill, 187 W.Va. 136, 416 S.E.2d 253 (1992), we noted that the double jeopardy proscription does not prohibit multiple punishments for the same offense when a contrary legislative intent has been clearly expressed. In Gill, we found such legislative intent clearly expressed in the declaration of "a separate and distinct offense under" W.Va.Code, 61-8D-5(a) for sexual abuse involving parents, custodians or guardians. 187 W.Va. at 143, 416 S.E.2d at 260. Syllabus Point 7 of Gill states:
A claim that double jeopardy has been violated based on multiple punishments imposed after a single trial is resolved by determining the legislative intent as to punishment.
To determine legislative intent, a court should examine the language of the criminal statutes at issue and, if necessary, the legislative history to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Ward
...490 S.E.2d 636 (1997) in which this Court held that wanton endangerment was a lesser included offense of malicious assault. The decision in Wright involved the of malicious assault. While not the specific crime of malicious assault on a law enforcement officer, which is the crime of which P......
-
State v. Thomas
... ... Louk , [169] W.Va. [24], 285 S.E.2d 432 (1981) ... [ overruled on other grounds, State v. Jenkins , 191 ... W.Va. 87, 443 S.E.2d 244 (1994)].' Syllabus Point 1, ... State v. Neider , 170 W.Va. 662, 295 S.E.2d 902 ... (1982)." Syllabus Point 5, State v. Wright , 200 ... W.Va. 549, 490 S.E.2d 636 (1997) ... 5 ... "Under Code, 61-11-8, which provides, in part, that: ... 'Every person who attempts to commit an offense, but ... fails to commit or is prevented from committing it, shall, ... where it is ... ...
-
State v. Maichle
... ... assault" (quoting W.Va. Code § 61-2-9(a))). Because ... unlawful assault is a lesser included offense of malicious ... assault, it may not include an element that is not part of ... the greater offense. See Syl. pt. 5, State v ... Wright , 200 W.Va. 549, 490 S.E.2d 636 (1997) ("The ... test of determining whether a particular offense is a lesser ... included offense is that the lesser offense must be such that ... it is impossible to commit the greater offense without first ... having committed the lesser ... ...
-
State v. Moore
...W.Va. 87, 443 S.E.2d 244 (1994) ]." Syllabus Point 1, State v. Neider, 170 W.Va. 662, 295 S.E.2d 902 (1982).' Syl. Pt. 5, State v. Wright, 200 W.Va. 549, 490 S.E.2d 636 (1997)." West Virginia Code § 60A-4-401(c), the simple possession statute, does not meet this test because it is not impos......