1

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

SGT. Robert Timothy Ankrom,

Petitioner

vs.) No. 19-0357 (Harrison County 16-P-9-1)

Sheriff of Harrison County, West Virginia,

Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Robert Timothy Ankrom, by counsel Sam H. Harrold, appeals the Circuit Court 

of Harrison County’s March 6, 2019, order denying his motion for attorney’s fees. Respondent 

Sheriff of Harrison County, by counsel Andrea L. Roberts, filed an appeal in support of the circuit 

court’s order. On appeal, petitioner argues the circuit court erred in denying his motion for 

attorney’s fees. 

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, 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.

Petitioner, a sergeant with the Harrison County Sheriff’s Department (“Sheriff’s 

Department”), was assigned to work as a family court bailiff and supervisor. On January 12, 2015, 

a juror brought his lunch to the courthouse in a small cooler. Such items were not allowed in the 

courtroom, so another bailiff, Jeremy Jaumot, placed the cooler in the hallway. Twenty-minutes 

later, the cooler was discovered by bailiff Mike Baldwin, who called petitioner, who was Mr. 

Baldwin’s supervisor. Petitioner informed his supervisor, Lt. Greg Scolapio, about the cooler and 

also called Joe Carbacio, Sheriff Albert Marano’s administrative assistant to inquire if he could 

investigate the cooler. Petitioner never personally investigated the cooler. Mr. Carbacio called 

Sheriff Marano, who investigated the cooler and determined it contained a juror’s lunch. 

In a January 21, 2015, letter, petitioner was informed that he violated the departmental 

mission by failing to personally examine the cooler and investigate its presence; that he violated 

the chain of command by asking a civilian, Mr. Carbacio, to respond to investigate the cooler and 

failing to keep his supervisor informed of the situation; that he violated the regulation regarding 

FILED

February 7, 2020

EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA
2

attention to duty by failing to show full attention to his assignment; and that he violated request 

for service by failing to take prompt action regarding a request for police service. On March 20, 

2015, petitioner was demoted to the rank of deputy for violating the Sheriff Department’s rules 

and regulations. He appealed the decision to the Civil Service Commission (“Commission”). After 

hearings on June 17, 2015, and July 20, 2015, the Commission found that petitioner failed to obey 

the rules and regulations of the Sheriff’s Department regarding chain of command, attention to 

duty, and request for service. The Commission further found that petitioner was properly demoted 

to the rank of deputy.

Petitioner appealed the Commission’s decision to the circuit court, and the petition for 

review was granted. The circuit court vacated the findings and conclusions of the Commission and 

remanded the case for further proceedings and an alternative disciplinary action on June 14, 2018. 

Petitioner then filed a motion for contempt asserting that the Sheriff’s Department should have 

reinstated him to the rank of sergeant. On September 14, 2016, the parties negotiated an agreement 

in which petitioner received a written warning, was reinstated to the rank of sergeant, and was 

given back pay. The agreement also required petitioner to dismiss his motion for contempt and 

specified that there would be no further action or appeal as pertains to the case. The agreement 

was submitted to and signed by the circuit court on September 14, 2018. On September 21, 2018, 

petitioner filed a motion for attorney’s fees in the amount of $55,706. The circuit court entered an 

order on March 6, 2019, denying petitioner’s motion because he was neither reinstated nor 

exonerated by the circuit court. It is from this order that petitioner appeals. 

In reviewing a circuit court decision on attorney’s fees, this Court has stated that 

“[t]he decision to award or not to award attorney’s fees rests in the sound discretion 

of the circuit court, and the exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed on 

appeal except in cases of abuse.” Beto v. Stewart, 213 W.Va. 355, 359, 582 S.E.2d 

802, 806 (2003). See also Sanson v. Brandywine Homes, Inc., 215 W.Va. 307, 310, 

599 S.E.2d 730, 733 (2004) (“We . . . apply the abuse of discretion standard of

review to an award of attorney’s fees.”); Syl. pt. 2, Daily Gazette Co., Inc. v. West 

Virginia Dev. Office, 206 W.Va. 51, 521 S.E.2d 543 (1999) (“‘“‘[T]he trial [court] 

. . . is vested with a wide discretion in determining the amount of . . . court costs 

and counsel fees, and the trial [court’s] . . . determination of such matters will not 

be disturbed upon appeal to this Court unless it clearly appears that [it] has abused 

[its] discretion.’ Syllabus point 3, [in part,] Bond v. Bond, 144 W.Va. 478, 109 

S.E.2d 16 (1959).” Syl. pt. 2, [in part,] Cummings v. Cummings, 170 W.Va. 712, 

296 S.E.2d 542 (1982) [ (per curiam) ].’ Syllabus point 4, in part, Ball v. Wills, 190 

W.Va. 517, 438 S.E.2d 860 (1993).”). 

Corp. of Harpers Ferry v. Taylor, 227 W. Va. 501, 504, 711 S.E.2d 571, 574 (2011).

On appeal, petitioner asserts that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for attorney’s 

fees. West Virginia Code § 7-14-17(b) provides that “[t]he deputy, if reinstated or exonerated by 

the circuit court or by the Supreme Court of Appeals, shall, if represented by legal counsel, be 

awarded reasonable attorney fees as approved by the court and the fees shall be paid by the sheriff 

from county funds.” Petitioner argues that when the circuit court granted his petition for review, it 

concluded that petitioner’s demotion was not warranted or justified and, therefore, vacated the 
3

Commission’s findings. Accordingly, petitioner asserts that he prevailed against respondent. He 

argues that by remanding the case with instructions that his discipline not include demotion and 

by finding that he did not violate the rules and regulations he was accused of violating, the circuit 

court effectively reinstated and exonerated him. 

Based on our review of the record below, we find that the circuit court committed no error.

Here, petitioner was neither exonerated nor reinstated by the circuit court. His case was resolved 

when the parties reached an agreement whereby petitioner would be given a written warning and 

be reinstated with back pay. While the circuit court determined that petitioner’s demotion in rank 

was not justified, it did not reinstate or exonerate petitioner. In fact, the circuit court explicitly 

found that if it had exonerated petitioner, his case would not have been remanded for alternative 

disciplinary action. Accordingly, pursuant to the plain language of West Virginia Code § 7-14-

17(b), we find no error in the circuit court’s denial of petitioner’s motion for attorney’s fees.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the March 6, 2019, order denying petitioner’s motion 

for attorney’s fees. 

Affirmed.

ISSUED: February 7, 2020

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Justice Tim Armstead

Justice Margaret L. Workman 

Justice Elizabeth D. Walker

Justice Evan H. Jenkins

Justice John A. Hutchison