State of West Virginia v. Andrew W. Castaneira, 15-1239

Background

Defendant Andrew W. Castaneira was tried and convicted in Berkeley County for possession of child pornography depicting a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct that "depicts violence against a child" under W. Va. Code § 61-8C-3(d).
Multiple counsel changes occurred pretrial; defendant repeatedly refused a continuance and objected to trial counsel Matthew Yanni but the court denied appointment of new counsel and proceeded to trial as scheduled.
Evidence: forensic analysis tied an IP address and seized computers to the defendant; a video showing an adult male digitally penetrating and raping a young girl (approx. 4–7 years old) was played for the jury; hundreds of other child pornographic images/files were found.
Following conviction, the circuit court sentenced defendant to 5–15 years, lifetime sex-offender registration, and ten years supervised release.
On appeal defendant raised seven assignments of error, including challenge to the jury instruction defining "depicts violence," claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, speedy-trial and counsel-appointment system challenges; several claims were raised for the first time on appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Castaneira)	Held
Whether the jury instruction that material "depicts violence" if it depicts sexual assault was legally correct	Instruction correctly applied common meaning of "violence" and ties to statutory sexual-assault definitions; sexual assault qualifies as violence	"Depicts violence" should require overt physical acts beyond sexual assault (e.g., hitting, restraining); otherwise § 61-8C-3(d)'s enhanced penalty is meaningless	Affirmed: sexual assaults shown in video constitute "violence" (common meaning = unlawful exercise of physical force); instruction proper
Whether defendant received ineffective assistance of trial counsel	State defers to trial record; claim is not appropriate for resolution on direct appeal	Counsel was ineffective (arguments raised)	Court declined to adjudicate ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal; such claims are generally developed in habeas proceedings
Whether several appellate claims (search-warrant validity, sufficiency of evidence, speedy trial, indigent counsel system) are reviewable when not raised below	State argues these issues were waived by failure to raise in trial court	Defendant contends these errors occurred and should be considered	Waived: Court refused to consider issues not raised below (procedural default)
Whether the appointment-of-counsel system or speedy-trial protections were constitutionally deficient	State contends system complied and defendant repeatedly refused continuance; no preserved error	Defendant argues systemic flaws and speedy-trial rights violations	Denied on appeal due to waiver or insufficiency of preserved record

Key Cases Cited

State v. Hinkle, 200 W.Va. 280 (court reviews jury instructions de novo)
State v. Guthrie, 194 W.Va. 657 (jury instructions must be correct statement of law and reviewed as whole)
State v. Gen. Daniel Morgan Post No. 548, V.F.W., 144 W.Va. 137 (statutes clear and unambiguous courts apply them)
State ex rel. Cohen v. Manchin, 175 W.Va. 525 (undefined statutory terms get common, ordinary meaning)
U.S. v. Myers, 355 F.3d 1040 (7th Cir.) (sexual assault of a child qualifies as "violent" for sentence enhancement under federal guidelines)
U.S. v. Lyckman, 235 F.3d 234 (5th Cir.) (penetrative sexual acts on young children are "sadistic"/"violent" for sentencing)
U.S. v. Garrett, 190 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir.) (images of painful sexual acts on young children qualify as sadistic/violent)
State v. Triplett, 187 W.Va. 760 (procedural posture for ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal)
State v. LaRock, 196 W.Va. 294 (failure to assert rights in trial court leads to procedural bar on appeal)