Morgan
County 16-M-AP-3
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Petitioner
Christopher Lee Nottingham, by counsel Ben J. Crawley-Woods,
appeals the Circuit Court of Morgan County's October 11,
2016, order dismissing his appeal from magistrate court for
lack of jurisdiction. The State, by counsel David A.
Stackpole, filed a response. On appeal, petitioner argues
that the circuit court erred in denying his appeal from
magistrate court because Rule 20.1(a) of the Rules of
Criminal Procedure for the Magistrate Courts of West Virginia
was not controlling.
This
Court has considered the parties' briefs and the record
on appeal. The facts and legal arguments are adequately
presented, and the decisional process would not be
significantly aided by oral argument. Upon consideration of
the standard of review, the briefs, and the record presented,
this Court finds no substantial question of law and no
prejudicial error. For these reasons, a memorandum decision
affirming the circuit court's order is appropriate under
Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Prior
to June of 2016, petitioner had criminal charges pending
against him in both Berkeley and Morgan Counties. In the
Berkeley County matter, petitioner was charged with probation
revocation. In the Morgan County matter currently on appeal,
petitioner was charged with entering an automobile, without
breaking, and petit larceny. According to petitioner, on June
3, 2016, the Magistrate Court of Morgan County held a
hearing, during which the State indicated that a plea
providing for concurrent sentencing was possible in the
matter, depending on the outcome of the Berkeley County
matter. Petitioner alleges that the parties came on for
another hearing on August 3, 2016, and informed the
magistrate court of the proposed plea agreement. The parties
further indicated that the Berkeley County matter was set for
a hearing in August of 2016. Petitioner acknowledges that the
magistrate court expressed concern with respect to concurrent
sentences for his crimes. Petitioner later admitted to
violating the terms of his probation in the Berkeley County
matter and was sentenced to a term of incarceration of one to
ten years in that matter.
On
August 25, 2016, the Magistrate Court of Morgan County held a
hearing, during which the State requested that the circuit
court set a trial date. The following month, petitioner filed
a "Motion To Enforce Plea Agreement."[1] According to
petitioner, he detrimentally relied upon his plea agreement
with the State when he admitted to violating his probation in
the unrelated criminal matter in Berkeley County. The same
day petitioner filed his motion, the State filed a motion to
dismiss the charges because it wished to present the matter
to a grand jury. The magistrate court ultimately granted the
State's motion to dismiss without ruling on
petitioner's motion.
In
September of 2016, petitioner filed a petition for appeal to
the circuit court and argued that the magistrate court should
have ruled on his motion. In ruling on petitioner's
appeal, the circuit court cited to Rule 20.1(a) of the Rules
of Criminal Procedure for the Magistrate Courts of West
Virginia, which provides that "any person
convicted of a misdemeanor in a magistrate court may
appeal such conviction to the circuit court as a
matter of right." (emphasis added). As such, the circuit
court found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear
petitioner's appeal. Accordingly, by order entered on
October 11, 2016, the circuit court denied petitioner's
petition for appeal. It is from this order that petitioner
appeals.
We have
previously established the following standard of review:
"In reviewing challenges to the findings and conclusions
of the circuit court, we apply a two-prong deferential
standard of review. We review the final order and the
ultimate disposition under an abuse of discretion standard,
and we review the circuit court's underlying factual
findings under a clearly erroneous standard. Questions of law
are subject to a de novo review." Syl. Pt. 2,
Walker v. West Virginia Ethics Comm'n, 201 W.Va.
108, 492 S.E.2d 167 (1997).
Syl. Pt. 2, State v. Bruffey, 207 W.Va. 267, 531
S.E.2d 332 (2000). Upon our review, we find no error in the
proceedings below.
As the
circuit court correctly found, Rule 20.1(a) of the Rules of
Criminal Procedure for the Magistrate Courts of West Virginia
requires a conviction in order for a defendant to appeal. On
appeal to this Court, petitioner cites to various other
statutes and authorities that he argues vest jurisdiction in
circuit courts to hear appeals from magistrate court criminal
cases that do not result in a conviction. However, we do not
find these authorities persuasive.
Specifically,
while it is true that West Virginia Code § 51-2-2(a)
grants circuit courts "supervision and control of all
proceedings before magistrates[, ]" petitioner ignores
the fact that West Virginia Code § 51-2-2(e) provides
that "[t]he circuit court shall have appellate
jurisdiction in all cases, civil and criminal, where an
appeal, writ of error or supersedeas may be allowed
to the judgment or proceedings of any inferior
tribunal." (emphasis added). Here, Rule 20.1(a) allows
only for appeals from convictions in magistrate court
criminal proceedings. Similarly, West Virginia Code §
50-5-13(a) limits appeals from magistrate court criminal
cases to convictions. ("Any person convicted of
an offense in a magistrate court may appeal such
conviction to circuit court as a matter of right by
requesting such appeal within twenty days after the
sentencing for such conviction. (emphasis added)).
The
Court is similarly not persuaded by Rule 37(a)(2) of the West
Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides that
"[a]n appeal permitted by law from a magistrate
court to a circuit court is taken by requesting an appeal in
the magistrate court within the time provided by Chapter 50,
Article 5, Section 13, of the West Virginia Code of 1931, as
amended." (emphasis added). As with West Virginia Code
§ 51-2-2(d), the language of this rule limits appeals to
those permitted by law, which would necessarily exclude
criminal appeals from magistrate court where a conviction
does not issue. Accordingly, we find no merit to
petitioner's arguments on appeal.
For the
foregoing reasons, the circuit court's October 11, 2016,
order dismissing ...