Thomas Loses Bid to Have Supreme Court of Appeals Overturn Ruling

Levi Thomas has lost his bid to have the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals overturn a Brooke County Circuit Court ruling involving his misdemeanor charges of unlawful assault on a government representative, obstructing an officer and violation of a bond condition.
The circuit order of Dec. 6, 2023, granted a motion by prosecutor Allison Cowden to dismiss those misdemeanor charges so the state could proceed to prosecute Thomas on similar felony charges from the same incident.
The state’s highest court issued a memorandum decision on Thomas’ appeal after determining that the appeal involved no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. It said oral arguments on the appeal were unnecessary.
Thomas allegedly attempted to stab a deputy sheriff and was charged with the misdemeanor offenses of unlawful assault on a government representative, obstructing an officer, and violation of a bond condition.
Subsequently, he was indicted by a Brooke County Grand Jury for the felony offenses of attempted malicious assault on a government representative and assault on an officer.
Those two felony offenses and the misdemeanor charges of obstructing an officer and unlawful assault on a government representative arose out of the same incident with the deputy sheriff.
While each of the two cases remained open, the petitioner and the prosecutor engaged in plea negotiations in an attempt to reach a settlement. The parties’ plea negotiations were ultimately unsuccessful.
Therefore, the prosecuting attorney filed a motion to dismiss without prejudice the misdemeanor charges, while Thomas informed the magistrate court of his willingness to enter no contest pleas to them.
The magistrate court denied the prosecuting attorney’s motion to dismiss and accepted the petitioner’s no contest pleas to the misdemeanor offenses of unlawful assault on a government representative, obstructing an officer and violation of a bond condition.
For each misdemeanor count, the magistrate court sentenced the petitioner to a one-year term of incarceration to be served concurrently.
Subsequently, Thomas filed a motion in circuit court to dismiss four counts of the indictment, arguing that because he was already convicted in magistrate court for the same actions that are charged in these felony counts, the counts are barred by double jeopardy principles.
The prosecuting attorney initiated an appeal to the Supreme Court by filing a petition for prohibition seeking to prohibit the magistrate court from enforcing its denial of the motion to dismiss the misdemeanor charges.
After a Nov. 23, 2023, hearing, the circuit court directed the magistrate court to grant the prosecuting attorney’s motion to dismiss without prejudice the misdemeanor charges, thus allowing the state to proceed with the felony charges.
On appeal, Thomas argued that granting the writ of mandamus was erroneous because he has a right to be tried in magistrate court.
“It is well-settled that the prosecuting attorney is vested with discretion in the management of criminal cases, which discretion is committed to him or her for the public good and for vindication of the public interest,” the Supreme Court said.
“Thus, the prosecutor may decide which of several possible charges to bring against an accused. In addition, because the petitioner’s alleged conduct involving the deputy sheriff was part of the same offense, the Rules of Criminal Procedure require that any counts based on that conduct be prosecuted in a single prosecution.
“The circuit court, and not the magistrate court, has jurisdiction over the felony indictment.
“Under those circumstances, we conclude that the circuit court did not err in ordering the magistrate court to grant the prosecutor’s motion to dismiss, without prejudice, the misdemeanor charges. Otherwise, the magistrate would be barring the prosecution of the felony indictment pending in circuit court,” the opinion said.
“A writ of mandamus is appropriate because the magistrate court has no authority over the felony indictment, the prosecutor has the right to manage the prosecution, and the prosecutor has no other adequate remedy.”
The decision issued Oct. 21 was concurred in by Chief Justice William R. Wooten, Justices C. Haley Bunn, Charles S. Trump IV and Thomas H. Ewing as well as Senior Status Justice John A. Hutchinson.