State of West Virginia v. Paul C., 853 S.E.2d 569

Petitioner Paul C. was indicted March 7, 2017 on sexual offenses involving two minors; original indictment led to trial scheduling and multiple pretrial motions and discovery requests.
Pretrial proceedings included appointment of a guardian ad litem and court-ordered psychological evaluations to determine whether the victims could testify via live, two-way closed-circuit video under WV Code § 62-6B.
Multiple continuances occurred: petitioner sought discovery and other pretrial relief; the State moved to continue when victims were in counseling; the court likewise continued to allow completion of statutorily required evaluations.
On May 10, 2018, five days before a scheduled trial date, petitioner’s counsel acknowledged additional motions to be filed and agreed to a new trial date, effectively signaling a need for continuance.
The original indictment was dismissed without prejudice in August 2018; petitioner was reindicted January 5, 2019. He moved to dismiss (Feb. 2019) under the three-term rule and later entered an Alford plea reserving the right to appeal the speedy-trial claim.
The circuit court denied the three-term dismissal; the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that at least one of the contested terms (March 2018) was excused because petitioner’s counsel instigated circumstances requiring a continuance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether three regular terms passed without trial under WV Code § 62-3-21, requiring discharge	Petitioner: June 2017, Oct. 2017, and March 2018 terms passed without trial and none fall within statutory exceptions, so discharge is required	State: At least one term (March 2018) was excused because petitioner’s filings and counsel’s representations necessitated a continuance; other delays were justified by victim evaluation and preparation needs	Court: Denied dismissal — March 2018 was an excused term because petitioner’s counsel instigated or agreed to continuance; three unexcused terms did not pass

State v. Grimes, 226 W. Va. 411, 701 S.E.2d 449 (2009) (review standard for motions to dismiss: de novo legal review; clearly erroneous for factual findings after hearing)
State v. Foddrell, 171 W. Va. 54, 297 S.E.2d 829 (1982) (speedy-trial right guaranteed by state and federal constitutions)
Good v. Handlan, 176 W. Va. 145, 342 S.E.2d 111 (1986) (three-term rule is the legislative speedy-trial standard)
State v. Damron, 213 W. Va. 8, 576 S.E.2d 253 (2002) (three regular terms after indictment require discharge unless statutory exceptions apply)
State ex rel. Spadafore v. Fox, 155 W. Va. 674, 186 S.E.2d 833 (1972) (continuance procured by defendant is not counted as an unexcused term)
State ex rel. Farley v. Kramer, 153 W. Va. 159, 169 S.E.2d 106 (1969) (a defendant who instigates proceedings forcing a continuance may not later claim delay against the State)
State v. Carrico, 189 W. Va. 40, 427 S.E.2d 474 (1993) (the term in which the indictment is returned is not counted toward the three-term rule)
State v. Roy, 194 W. Va. 276, 460 S.E.2d 277 (1995) (court may conduct in-camera review of confidential counseling records if relevance is shown)
State v. David K., 238 W. Va. 33, 792 S.E.2d 44 (2016) (statutory framework and safeguards for allowing child witnesses to testify via closed-circuit video)