State v. Soustek (Signed Opinion)
Annotate this CaseDefendant entered a conditional plea to one count each of identity theft relating to a bail agreement, misdemeanor simple possession, and misdemeanor DUI. Defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the identity theft counts in the indictment because the criminal bail agreement and the affidavit of eligibility for appointed counsel did not, according to Defendant, constitute financial transactions under the provisions of W. Va. Code 61-3-54. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court correctly determined that the criminal bail agreement was a financial transaction as contemplated by section 61-3-54.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.