Court Opinion

ID: 9891323
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-18 12:12:21.176863+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:00.426813
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                                 October 18, 2023
                                                                                 EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
                             STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA                              SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                      OF WEST VIRGINIA
                           SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

Lotta M. Gray,
Petitioner Below, Petitioner

vs.) No. 22-0367 (Berkeley County 2021-P-496)

State of West Virginia, and the Honorable
Harry L. Snow, Magistrate of Berkeley
County,
Respondents Below, Respondents

                               MEMORANDUM DECISION

       Petitioner Lotta M. Gray appeals the Circuit Court of Berkeley County’s April 12, 2022,
order denying his motion to alter or amend the circuit court’s order dismissing as moot his petition
for a writ of mandamus seeking another preliminary hearing. 1 Upon our review, finding no
substantial question of law and no prejudicial error, we determine that oral argument is
unnecessary and that a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court’s order is appropriate.
See W. Va. R. App. P. 21(c).

         In August 2021, T.L.D. reported to police that her daughter, eighteen-year-old A.D., was
sexually assaulted. Petitioner was charged with the second-degree sexual assault of A.D., and he
subpoenaed A.D. and T.L.D. to testify at his preliminary hearing. The State moved to quash those
subpoenas, arguing that A.D. had “special needs which could exacerbate the trauma of preliminary
testimony” and that petitioner improperly sought to obtain discovery from T.L.D. The magistrate
court granted the State’s motion, concluding that the subpoenas were “unnecessary, unduly
burdensome, and premature.” At petitioner’s ensuing preliminary hearing, the investigating officer
testified, and the magistrate court found probable cause.

       Petitioner then moved the circuit court for and was granted leave to file a petition for a writ
of mandamus, commencing this separate civil proceeding. Petitioner argued that the magistrate
court exceeded its legitimate powers by quashing the subpoenas, and he sought another
preliminary hearing. During the pendency of the mandamus proceeding, petitioner was indicted
on crimes related to his alleged sexual contact with A.D. The State thereafter moved to dismiss

       1
         Petitioner appears by counsel Dana F. Eddy. Respondent State of West Virginia appears
by Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and Assistant Attorney General Andrea Nease Proper. We
note that initials are used where necessary to protect the identities of those involved in this case.
See W. Va. R. App. P. 40(e).
                                                  1
petitioner’s petition for mandamus relief on the ground that petitioner’s indictment rendered that
petition moot. The circuit court agreed and dismissed his petition. Petitioner moved to alter or
amend the court’s ruling, and the court denied the motion by order entered on April 12, 2022,
finding that the State had a duty to present the matter to the grand jury and reiterating that
petitioner’s petition was moot. Petitioner now appeals, and our review is de novo. Syl. Pt. 1, State
v. Davis, 236 W. Va. 550, 782 S.E.2d 423 (2015) (holding that a de novo standard of review applies
to a court’s denial of a writ of mandamus); Syl. Pt. 1, Wickland v. Am. Travellers Life Ins. Co.,
204 W. Va. 430, 513 S.E.2d 657 (1998) (holding that the standard of review applicable to an appeal
from a motion to alter or amend a judgment “is the same standard that would apply to the
underlying judgment upon which the motion is based and from which the appeal to this Court is
filed”).

        Petitioner contends that the circuit court erred in dismissing his petition as moot,
maintaining that the harm from the allegedly defective preliminary hearing will permeate his
criminal proceedings. He argues further that, even if his petition was technically moot, the court
erred in failing to address it because the issues presented were of significant public interest and
capable of repetition.

        “Moot questions or abstract propositions, the decision of which would avail nothing in the
determination of controverted rights of persons or of property, are not properly cognizable by a
court.” Israel ex rel. Israel v. W. Va. Secondary Schs. Activities Comm’n, 182 W. Va. 454, 457,
388 S.E.2d 480, 483 (1989) (quoting State ex rel. W. Va. Secondary Schs. Activities Comm’n v.
Oakley, 152 W. Va. 533, 537, 164 S.E.2d 775, 778 (1968)). “[A] case is moot when the issues
presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” State
ex rel. Bluestone Coal Corp. v. Mazzone, 226 W. Va. 148, 155, 697 S.E.2d 740, 747 (2010)
(quoting Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969)). Consequently, a case may be rendered moot
“when the circumstances of the case change during the course of its pendency” or “when the parties
thereto experience a change in status.” Id. at 155-56, 697 S.E.2d at 747-48 (citation omitted). Such
is the case here. Petitioner sought a new preliminary hearing below, but he acknowledges to this
Court that his subsequent indictment precludes affording him that relief: “Admittedly, a second
preliminary hearing is not to be afforded, due to the indictment . . . .” Therefore, deciding whether
petitioner should be afforded another preliminary hearing would avail nothing in the determination
of controverted rights, and the court correctly determined that petitioner’s petition was rendered
moot by his indictment in the related criminal proceedings.

        Nevertheless, petitioner correctly notes that technically moot cases that present “questions
of great public interest” or issues that “may be repeatedly presented to the trial court, yet escape
review at the appellate level,” may be addressed. Israel, 182 W. Va. at 455, 388 S.E.2d at 481,
Syl. Pt. 1, in part. We disagree, however, that the issue here meets either criterion. The manner in
which preliminary hearings are held and the parameters of taking evidence in those hearings are
addressed in Rule 5.1 of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 5.1 of the Rules of
Criminal Procedure for the Magistrate Courts of West Virginia, and West Virginia Code § 62-1-
8. This Court has expounded upon and applied this authority, developing a body of caselaw
addressing the issue. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the issue presented here is escaping review
at the appellate level, and to the extent that the question here is of great public interest, it has been
answered. As a result, there was no need to address the moot issue presented here.

                                                   2
       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

                                               3