1 

### STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

State of West Virginia

, Plaintiff Below

, Respondent

vs.) No. 22-0369 ( Jefferson County CC -19-2020-F-26)

Godfrey Eugene Warren

, Defendant Below, Petitioner



### MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner appeals the judgment order of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, entered on December 6, 2021, confirming that the circuit court denied petitioner’s motion for judgment of acquittal and adjudging petitioner guilty of felony conspiracy (W. Va. Code § 61 -10- 31) and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person (W. Va. Code § 61 -7-7(b )(1) ) . For these convictions, the court sentenced petition er to concurrent terms of imprisonment for one to five years and eight years, respectively

. 1 Upon our review, we determine that oral argument is unnecessary and that a memorandum decision is appropriate. See W. Va. R. App. Proc. 21. 2

Mr. Warren was con victed in a jury trial in November 2021 of the charges described above. The evidence offered in support of his conviction was centered on events that unfolded over several days when Mr. Warren , a convicted felon, and several other individuals appeared at v arious businesses where they purchased or attempted to purchase firearms

. At his trial, Shani kqua Clark

testified that Mr. Warren and at least one other individual (al so legally prohibited from purchasing firearms) engaged her to purchase firearms for resa le. Police ultimately seized s everal of the guns purchased by Ms. Clark in a hotel room that Mr. Warren shared with the other individual (his codefendant). Though Mr. Warren did not directly engage in a firearms transaction, the jury found

that the evidence supported the conclusion that he conspired to violate West Virginia Code § 61

- 7- 10(f) (2010) 3 , which at the time of the events underlying Mr. Warren ’s indictment provided, in

part:

1 Mr. Warren’s firearm possession sentence was enhanced with an additional five years for

a subse quent recidivist conviction under West Virginia Code § 61-11-18.

2 Mr. Warren appears by counsel B. Craig Manford. Respondent State of West Virginia appears by Attorney General Patrick Morris ey and Assistant Attorney General Andrea Nease Proper.

3 This prohibition is now found at West Virginia Code § 61-7-10(e). 

### FILED October 18, 2023

EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA2 Any person who knowingly solicits, persuades, encourages or entices a licensed dealer or private seller of firearms or ammunition to transfer a firearm or ammunition under circumstances which the person knows would violate the laws of this state or the United States is guilty of a felony. Any person who willfully

p rocures another to engage in conduct prohibited by this subsection shall be punished as a principal.

The jury further found that Mr. Warren, who stipulated that he was previously convicted of armed robbery, violated West Virginia Code § 61

- 7

- 7(b)(1) , whi ch prohibits any person “[w]ho has been

convi cted in this state or any other jurisdiction of a felony crime of violence against the person of another . . .” from possessi ng a firearm.

Mr. Warren asserts three assignments of error on appeal. He argues, first, that the circuit

court erred because it did not “ direct a verdict ” in his favor after the State failed to present evidence

that he unlawfully possessed a firearm. Next, he argues that the circuit court erred in failing to delay his crimi nal trial when he “arrived late on the first day of trial if the court believed him to be impaired and unable to assist [his] counsel in his defense.” Finally, he argues that the circuit court erred when it denied his post

- trial motion for a judgment of ac quittal after the State failed to prove a necessary element

— that he solicited a licensed firearms dealer to violate state firearms laws

— of West Virginia Code § 61

- 7

- 10(f) , and thus failed to prove that he conspired to violate that

statute.

We begin with the first assignment of error , concerning the sufficiency of the evidence supporting Mr. Warren’ s conviction of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person

. At the

conclusion of the State’s case

- in

- chief, Mr. Warren’s counsel moved for a judgment of a cquittal

, and the circuit court denied his motion

. 4 The Court applies a de novo standard of review. State v.

LaRock , 196 W. Va. 294, 304, 470 S.E.2d 613, 623 (1 996). Furthermore,

[t]he function of an appellate court when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, is sufficient to convinc e a reasonable person of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements

o f the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

4 Counsel ’s argument in support of his motion specifically addressed counts concerning

solicitation of unlawful firearms transacti ons and conspiracy. While addressing the court in support of these arguments he briefly alluded to “constructive possession” and argued, “But mere proximity, that’s all we’ve got.” Based on the context and the arguments made by a codefendant’s

counsel imme diately preceding Mr. Warren’s motion, it appears that Mr. Warren was arguing for judgment of acquittal of his other charges, not the possession count . However, the State has not argued that Mr. Warren failed to present a motion for judgment of acquittal on the charge of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person

.3 Syl. Pt. 1, State v. Guthrie , 194 W. Va. 657, 461 S.E.2d 163 (1995). It is undisputed that numerous firearms were seized from the hotel room that Mr. Warren shared with his codefendant. Under the facts present ed in this case, it is apparent that Mr. Warren exercised control over firearms . W e find

no error , and there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that he was a felon in possession of

a firearm

.

In his second assignment of error, Mr. Warren argues that the circuit court erred in proceeding with his trial when he was possibly impaired. Mr. Warren provides scant detail of this

incident , and he provides no citation to show that his counsel raised concerns about his ability to proceed with trial

. Because Mr. Warren sought no relief from the circuit court, we review this assignment of error for plain error. “To trigger application of the ‘plain error’ doctrine, there must be (1) an error; (2) that is plain; (3) that affects substantial rights; and ( 4) seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.” Syl. Pt. 7, State v. Miller , 194 W. Va. 3, 459 S.E.2d 114 (1995)

. We find no error on the face of the record before us. The record

reflects that the circuit co urt , after learning that Mr. Warren was involved in a motor vehicle accident during a lunch break, asked Mr. Warren’s counsel whether he had concerns about his client appearing under the influence of drugs. Counsel responded, “I’ve had no indications

. . . . [H]e seems fine.” 5 During this conversation, Mr. Warren assured the court that he was not under the influence of drugs. Nevertheless, the court informed the parties that it would order that Mr.

Warren submit to a drug test. Mr. Warren, however, points to no evidence in the appendix record on appeal to suggest that he submitted to a test that yielded a positive result. Mr. Warren has

offered no evidence or authority to persuade us that the circuit court did not adequately protect his

interests

.

Finally , in his third assignment of error

, Mr. Warren argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because there was no evidence that he conspired to

“solicit a licensed dealer of firearms to violate the firearms law of this state.” He argues, in essence,

that the conduct for which he is convicted of conspiring is not prohibited by West Virginia law. As with the first assignment of error, we apply a de novo standard of review. LaRock , 196 W. Va

. at 304, 470 S.E.2d at 623. In support of his argument, however, Mr. Warren “adopts by reference the sole assignment of error contained in the [p]etition for [a]ppeal of his co[]defendant” filed under a separate docket number with this Court. 6 This is a whol ly deficient manner of prosecuting an appeal under the rules of this Court , which do not contemplate that a petitioner present his argument through the incorporation of extraneous pleadings or documents. Rather, Mr. Warren himself is required to file a bri ef that

contain[s] an argument clearly exhibiting the points of fact and law presented, the standard of review applicable, and citing the authorities relied on, under headings that correspond with the assignments of error. The argument must contain

approp riate and specific citations to the record on appeal, including citations that pinpoint when and how the issues in the assignments of error were presented to the

5 Mr. Warren’s trial counsel also appears on his behalf as appellate counsel.

6 See State v. Estep , No. 22

- 0150.4 lower tribunal. The Intermediate Court and the Supreme Court may disregard errors

that are not adequately supported by specific references to the record on appeal.

W. Va. R. App. P. 10 (c)(7). We, therefore, will disregard Mr. Warren’s skeletal argument on this

issue ( see State, Dep ’ t of Health & Hum. Res., Child Advoc. Off. on Behalf of Robert Mic hael B.

v. Robert Morris N ., 195 W. Va. 759, 765, 466 S.E.2d 827, 833 (1995) (citations omitted ) ) , except

to note that we find no merit in the fleeting assertion that third

- party firearms purchases like those

described at Mr. Warren’s trial are not prohibited by West Virginia Code § 61

- 7

- 10( f ) as effective at the time of the conduct underlying Mr. Warren’s indictment

.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

Affirmed.

ISSUED: October 18, 2023

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Justice Elizabeth D. Walker

Justice Tim Armstead

Justice John A. Hutchison

Justice William R. Wooton Justice C. Haley Bunn