1

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

State of West Virginia,

Plaintiff Below, Respondent

vs.) No. 19-0590 (Nichols County 17-F-1)

Charles B.,

Defendant Below, Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Charles B., self-represented, appeals the Circuit Court of Nicholas County’s June 

12, 2019, order denying petitioner’s “Motion to Correct Sentence or, In the Alternative, Motion to 

Correct Errors in the Record Arising from Oversight or Omission.”1 The State of West Virginia, 

by counsel Karen Villanueva-Matkovich, filed a response asserting that because the circuit court’s 

order is insufficient as a matter of law, this Court should remand this case to the circuit court with 

directions to enter an order containing appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The 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. This case satisfies the “limited circumstances” requirement of Rule 21(d) of the

Rules of Appellate Procedure and is appropriate for a memorandum decision rather than an 

opinion. For the reasons expressed below, the decision of the circuit court is vacated, and this case 

is remanded to the circuit court for specific findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding 

petitioner’s “Motion to Correct Sentence or, In the Alternative, Motion to Correct Errors in the 

Record Arising from Oversight or Omission.”

Petitioner was indicted by a grand jury in January of 2017 on one count of first-degree 

sexual assault; seven counts of sexual abuse in the first degree; twelve counts of sexual abuse by 

a parent, custodian, or guardian; and six counts of third-degree sexual assault. Petitioner entered 

into a plea agreement whereby he agreed to plead guilty to four counts of sexual abuse by a parent, 

custodian, or guardian, and the State agreed to dismiss the remaining charges. Upon the entry of 

1Consistent with our long-standing practice in cases with sensitive facts, we use 

initials where necessary to protect the identities of those involved. See In re K.H., 235 W. Va. 254,

773 S.E.2d 20 (2015); In re Jeffrey R.L., 190 W. Va. 24, 435 S.E.2d 162 (1993); State v. Edward

Charles L., 183 W. Va. 641, 398 S.E.2d 123 (1990).

FILED

July 30, 2020 

EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA
2

his pleas, petitioner was sentenced to ten to twenty years of incarceration on each count of sexual 

abuse by a parent, custodian, or guardian, said sentences to run concurrently. Petitioner did not file 

a direct appeal of his convictions or sentences.

On April 5, 2019, petitioner filed a “Motion to Correct Sentence or, In the Alternative, 

Motion to Correct Errors in the Record Arising From Oversight or Omission” and a memorandum 

in support thereof. Petitioner asked the circuit court to correct his sentences and allow him the 

opportunity to elect under which statute he should be sentenced, in accordance with West Virginia 

Code § 2-2-8. The circuit court denied that motion by order entered on June 12, 2019. The entirety 

of that order provides as follows:

On or about April 5th, 2019, the Inmate Defendant, Charles B.[] (hereinafter 

“Defendant”), filed pro se, a “Motion to Correct Sentence or, In the Alternative, 

Motion to Correct Errors in the Record Arising from Oversight or Omission.”

The [c]ourt notes that this Defendant was sentenced on 

December 22nd, 2017. A review of the record indicates that the 

Defendant did not file an appeal in this matter, nor did he file a 

motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 35(b) of the West 

Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure.

The Court, after review of Defendant’s motion and upon 

review of the court file, has determined that Defendant’s motion 

should be DENIED.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Defendant’s “Motion 

to Correct Sentence or, In the Alternative, Motion to Correct Errors 

in the Record Arising From Oversight or Omission” is hereby 

DENIED. . . .

Petitioner appeals from that June 12, 2019, order.

Our standard of review of an order correcting a sentence under Rule 35 has been stated as 

follows:

“In reviewing the findings of fact and conclusions of law of a circuit court 

concerning an order on a motion made under Rule 35 of the West Virginia Rules

of Criminal Procedure, we apply a three-pronged standard of review. We review 

the decision on the Rule 35 motion under an abuse of discretion standard; the 

underlying facts are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard; and questions of 

law and interpretations of statutes and rules are subject to a de novo review.” Syl. 

pt. 1, State v. Head, 198 W.Va. 298, 480 S.E.2d 507 (1996).
3

State v. Tex B.S., 236 W. Va. 261, 264, 778 S.E.2d 710, 713 (2015). In addition, this Court 

“reviews sentencing orders . . . under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, unless the order 

violates statutory or constitutional commands.” Syl. Pt. 1, in part, State v. Lucas, 201 W. Va. 271,

496 S.E.2d 221 (1997).

On appeal, petitioner argues that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying the 

motion to correct sentences or, alternatively, correct errors in the record arising from oversight or 

omission because petitioner’s sentences are prohibited by due process and ex post facto principles 

under the United States and West Virginia Constitutions. He further asserts that the circuit court 

abused its discretion in denying the motion to correct sentences or alternatively correct errors in 

the record arising from oversight or omission because petitioner’s sentences are inconsistent with 

the legislative goals of releasing a prisoner at the earliest possible date, consistent with public 

safety, and to avoid duplication or waste of effort and money.

However, as the State asserts, the circuit court’s order lacks appropriate findings of fact 

and conclusions of law supporting its decision under Rule 35(a) that would allow this Court to 

consider petitioner’s allegations of error. See Dennis v. State Div. of Corr., 223 W. Va. 509, 593, 

678 S.E.2d 470, 473 (2009) (“Clearly, the circuit court’s order lacks the requisite findings of fact 

and conclusions of law that permit meaningful review by this Court.”). As this Court has found, 

[w]ithout findings of fact and conclusions of law, this Court is unable to determine 

the basis for the court’s decision and whether any error has occurred. Consequently, 

in cases where there is an absence of adequate factual findings, it is necessary to 

remand the matter to the lower court to state or, at a minimum, amplify its findings 

so that meaningful appellate review may occur. 

Mullins v. Mullins, 226 W. Va. 656, 662, 704 S.E.2d 656, 662 (2010).

We, therefore, vacate the circuit court’s June 12, 2019, order denying petitioner’s “Motion 

to Correct Sentence or, In the Alternative, Motion to Correct Errors in the Record Arising from 

Oversight or Omission.” Upon remand, the circuit court shall set forth findings of fact and 

conclusions of law sufficient to allow meaningful appellate review in the event that petitioner 

elects to file an appeal.

Vacated and remanded.

ISSUED: July 30, 2020 

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Justice Tim Armstead

Justice Margaret L. Workman

Justice Elizabeth D. Walker

Justice Evan H. Jenkins

Justice John A. Hutchison