State v. Myers
229 W. Va. 238
W. Va.2012Background
- Tony Curtis Myers was convicted of three counts of first-degree robbery in Kanawha County and sentenced to 60 years on each count, to run concurrently.
- Police conducted a warrantless arrest, search, and seizure at Myers' apartment; suppression motions were filed.
- Two store clerks and two cleaning crew employees witnessed the robbery; Shaffer, a mail carrier, recognized Myers.
- Evidence linked to Myers’ apartment, including clothing and cash, was later obtained under a search warrant.
- The circuit court suppressed the on-scene identification but allowed in-court identifications and admitted items seized under the inevitable discovery doctrine; appellate review followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Warrantless arrest/search legality and inevitable discovery | Myers argues illegality of warrantless arrest/search taints evidence | State asserts warrantless search followed by valid warrant; inevitable discovery applies | Inevitable discovery upheld; evidence admitted |
| Pretrial identifications tainted by suggestive procedure | On-scene identifications were unduly suggestive and improper | In-court identifications reliable under Casdorph factors | In-court identifications proper; no suppression required |
| Double jeopardy for multiple robberies from single incident | Three robberies stem from one transaction; shouldn't be three counts | Each victim distinct; no double jeopardy violation under Collins distinguished | Three separate robberies valid; no double jeopardy error |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support three robberies | Insufficient visibility of offender; eyewitnesses unreliable | Eyewitness identifications plus clothing and cash link establish guilt | Evidence sufficient for guilt beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lilly, 194 W. Va. 595, 461 S.E.2d 101 (1995) (two-tier suppression standard; false information/omissions standard)
- State v. Flippo, ? S.E.2d ? (2002) (inevitable discovery test requires three elements)
- State v. Casdorph, 159 W.Va. 909, 230 S.E.2d 476 (1976) (reliability of out-of-court identifications; totality of circumstances)
- State v. Gill, 187 W. Va. 136, 416 S.E.2d 253 (1992) (three-part double jeopardy protections; multiple punishments concern)
- Guthrie, 194 W. Va. 657, 461 S.E.2d 163 (1995) (sufficiency standard: rational finder of fact beyond reasonable doubt)
- State v. Collins, 174 W. Va. 767, 329 S.E.2d 839 (1984) (limits on multiple convictions for attempted robberies; distinguish completed robberies)