1

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

In re: J.J.C. for Expungement of Records

No. 19-0868 (Kanawha County 19-P-259)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner J.J.C., by counsel Alan L. Pritt, appeals the Circuit Court of Kanawha County’s 

August 26, 2019, order denying his petition for expungement.

1 The State of West Virginia, by 

counsel Scott E. Johnson, 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. On appeal, 

petitioner argues that the circuit court erred in (1) finding that it had discretion as to whether to

grant petitioner’s petition for expungement; (2) failing to determine that the petition was 

insufficient; (3) in finding that, as a matter of law, petitioner was not entitled to expungement; and 

(4) denying the petition without holding a hearing.

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 “Petition for Expungement of Criminal Records.”

Petitioner was indicted by a Kanawha County grand jury in May of 2005 on two counts of 

operating or attempting to operate a clandestine drug laboratory and one count of conspiracy to 

operate a clandestine drug laboratory. Petitioner entered into a global plea agreement whereby he 

pled guilty to two counts of operating or attempting to operate a clandestine drug laboratory and 

one count of conspiracy to operate a clandestine drug laboratory in Kanawha County, and the State 

agreed to dismiss similar charges in Putnam County that arose from the same set of facts. Upon 

1

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

where necessary to protect the identities of those involved in this case. See In re K.H., 235 W. Va. 

254, 773 S.E.2d 20 (2015); Melinda H. v. William R. II, 230 W. Va. 731, 742 S.E.2d 419 (2013); 

State v. Brandon B., 218 W. Va. 324, 624 S.E.2d 761 (2005); State v. Edward Charles L., 183 W.

Va. 641, 398 S.E.2d 123 (1990). 

FILED

November 4, 2020

EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA
2

the entry of his pleas, petitioner was sentenced to one to five years of incarceration on the 

conspiracy conviction and two to ten years on each count of operating or attempting to operate a 

clandestine drug laboratory, said sentences to run concurrently. After serving a period of 

incarceration, petitioner was placed on parole in October of 2007 and was discharged from the 

West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation in December of 2008.

On July 3, 2019, petitioner filed a “Petition for Expungement of Criminal Records” and a 

memorandum in support thereof. Petitioner asked the circuit court to summarily grant his 

expungement request or, alternatively, set the matter for a hearing and allow him the opportunity 

to argue his case in accordance with West Virginia Code § 61-11-26(i). The circuit court denied 

that motion by order entered on August 26, 2019. The entirety of that order provides as follows:

The Court, having carefully reviewed the Petitioner’s Petition for Expungement of 

Criminal Records as Provided Under W. Va. Code Chapter 61, Article 11, Section 

26, as last amended does hereby DENY said Petition for Expungement in that the 

Petitioner entered pleas of guilty to Operating or Attempting to Operate a 

Clandestine Drug Laboratory and Conspiracy to Operate a Clandestine Drug 

Laboratory as contained in Felony Number 05-F-177 and the Court has discretion 

on whether a petition of expungement is granted. 

Petitioner appeals from that August 26, 2019, order.

We begin our analysis by noting that “[t]his Court reviews a circuit court’s order granting 

or denying expungement of criminal records for an abuse of discretion.” Syl. Pt. 1, In re A.N.T., 

238 W. Va. 701, 798 S.E.2d 623 (2017). On appeal, petitioner asserts four assignments of error. 

In his first three assignments of error, he argues that the circuit court abused its discretion and 

erred in denying his petition for expungement. In his fourth assignment of error, petitioner 

contends that the circuit court erred in summarily denying the petition without holding a hearing.

Here, the State concedes that the circuit court’s order lacks appropriate findings of fact and 

conclusions of law supporting its decision that would allow this Court to consider petitioner’s 

allegations of error. See Dennis v. State Div. of Corr., 223 W. Va. 590, 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 August 26, 2019, order denying petitioner’s 

“Petition for Expungement of Criminal Records.” Upon remand, the circuit court shall set 

forth findings of fact and conclusions of law sufficient to allow meaningful appellate review in the 
3

event that petitioner elects to file an appeal.2

Vacated and remanded.

ISSUED: November 4, 2020

CONCURRED IN BY:

Justice Margaret L. Workman

Justice Elizabeth D. Walker

Justice Evan H. Jenkins

Justice John A. Hutchison 

DISSENTING:

Chief Justice Tim Armstead

2

Because we are unable to undertake meaningful appellate review of the court’s order, as 

set forth above, and because we are remanding the matter for the entry of an order containing 

appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law, we find it unnecessary to rule on petitioner’s 

specific assignments of error set forth in this appeal.