Jefferson County CC-19-2008-F-62
Steven Kim Hatfield, by counsel David P. Skillman, appeals
the order of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, entered
on June 25, 2017, revoking his term of supervised release.
Respondent State of West Virginia appears by counsel Shannon
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,
the Court finds no substantial question of law and no
prejudicial error. For these reasons, a memorandum decision
affirming the order of the circuit court is appropriate under
Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
was convicted in 2008 of sexual abuse by a parent, guardian,
or custodian in violation of West Virginia Code §
61-8D-5. He was sentenced to serve ten to twenty years in the
state penitentiary, followed by a fifty-year period of
supervised release. Petitioner served the requisite term of
incarceration and he began his supervised release in October
of 2016. The State filed a motion to revoke his supervised
release in January of 2017, asserting that petitioner (1)
failed to update his information on the sex offender
registry, (2) failed to provide his exact address to his
supervised release officer, (3) frequented a business
expressly prohibited to him, (4) opened social media accounts
without notifying his supervised release officer, and (5) had
contact with minor children, all in violation of the terms of
his supervised release agreement. The circuit court conducted
a revocation hearing in June of 2017, subsequent to which it
revoked petitioner's supervised release and sentenced him
to serve five years in the state penitentiary on the basis
that petitioner committed the first, third, and fourth of the
appeal, petitioner asserts four assignments of error: (1) the
circuit court erred in not allowing petitioner to testify at
the revocation hearing, thus violating petitioner's due
process rights; (2) the circuit court failed to allow
"certain facts" to be "developed fully"
when petitioner "was not afforded an opportunity to
testify"; (3) the circuit court applied the incorrect
burden of proof in revoking petitioner's supervised
release; and (4) the circuit court erred in deeming certain
allegations admitted, despite its having instructed the State
to present evidence in support of its petition to revoke
supervised release. We explained in State v. Hedrick,
236 W.Va. 217, 223, 778 S.E.2d 666, 672 (2015), that in cases
such as this, where the conditions at issue on appeal are
derivative of the original sentencing order, we review
"'"under a deferential abuse of discretion
standard, unless the order violates statutory or
constitutional commands." Syllabus Point 1, in part,
State v. Lucas, 201 W.Va. 271, 496 S.E.2d 221
(1997).' Accord syl. pt. 1, State v.
James, 227 W.Va. 407, 710 S.E.2d 98 (2011)." We
also explained that "'[t]his Court reviews the
circuit court's final order and ultimate disposition
under an abuse of discretion standard. We review challenges
to findings of fact under a clearly erroneous standard;
conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.'
Accord syl. pt. 1, State v. Messer, 223
W.Va. 197, 672 S.E.2d 333 (2008); syl. pt. 1, State v.
Davis, 199 W.Va. 84, 483 S.E.2d 84 (1996)." We
further note that we consider petitioner's assignments of
error in relation to the statutory directive, set forth in
West Virginia Code § 62-12-26(g)(3), which authorizes
the circuit court to
[r]evoke a term of supervised release and require the
defendant to serve in prison all or part of the term of
supervised release without credit for time previously served
on supervised release if the court, pursuant to the West
Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure applicable to revocation
of probation, finds by clear and convincing evidence that the
defendant violated a condition of supervised release, except
that a defendant whose term is revoked under this subdivision
may not be required to serve more than the period of
begin with petitioner's first and second assignments of
error, both of which charge that the circuit court did not
allow petitioner to testify on his own behalf. The whole of
petitioner's argument in support of these assignments of
error is based on an exchange that transpired at the
conclusion of the State's presentation of evidence:
[The court]: Does the defense wish to offer any testimony or
[Defense counsel to petitioner]: Can you hear okay?
[Petitioner]: Yes, sir.
[Defense counsel to petitioner]: You can?
[Petitioner]: Yes, sir.
[Defense counsel to petitioner]: ...