1 

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

State of West Virginia, 

Plaintiff Below, Respondent 

vs.) No. 21-0619 (Kanawha County 11-F-319) 

Shane Peck, 

Defendant Below, Petitioner 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Shane Peck appeals the July 7, 2021, order of the Circuit Court of Kanawha 

County, which denied his motion to rescind his indictment.1 On appeal, petitioner argues that the 

circuit court’s order did not contain findings of fact and conclusions of law sufficient to allow for 

meaningful appellate review. Having carefully examined the matter, we agree with petitioner on 

this point. Accordingly, we vacate the circuit court’s July 7, 2021, order and remand this case to 

the circuit court for entry of an appropriate order. Because we find that this case satisfies the 

“limited circumstances” requirement of Rule 21(d) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, it is 

appropriate for disposition by a memorandum decision. See W. Va. R. App. P. 21(d). 

Petitioner was indicted in 2011. Later that same year, petitioner pleaded guilty to burglary, 

assault during the commission of a felony, and first-degree robbery as charged in Counts Four, 

Five, and Six in the indictment. He was sentenced to a determinate term of incarceration of 

seventy-five years for the first-degree robbery conviction, a concurrent term of incarceration of 

two to ten years for the assault during the commission of a felony conviction, and a consecutive 

term of incarceration of one to fifteen years for his burglary conviction.2

On July 2, 2021, petitioner, acting without the assistance of counsel, filed a motion to 

rescind his indictment and a motion for appointment of counsel. In the motion to rescind, petitioner 

argued that the prosecuting attorney obtained the indictment against him through “willful, 

1

 Petitioner is self-represented in this appeal. Respondent State of West Virginia appears 

by counsel Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and Assistant Attorney General Andrea Nease 

Proper. 

2

 A detailed recitation of the facts giving rise to the charges is provided in Peck v. Plumley, 

No. 14-0421, 2015 WL 1231998 (W. Va. Mar. 16, 2015) (memorandum decision). In Peck, the 

Court affirmed the circuit court’s denial of petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 

FILED 

May 2, 2023 

EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 
2 

intentional fraud” and “false, fabricated evidence and testimony.” He alleged that an affidavit of a 

witness, which was executed in May of 2021 and which petitioner characterized as newly 

discovered evidence, established the prosecutor’s wrongdoing. 

The circuit court entered an order on July 7, 2021, which stated: 

The Court is in receipt of a Motion to Rescind Indictment, filed on behalf 

of the defendant, Shane Peck. On the 16th day of May, 2011, the Defendant pled 

guilty to the felony offenses of First Degree Robbery with a Firearm, Assault 

During the Commission of a Felony, and Burglary by Breaking and Entering, as 

contained in Counts Four, Five, and Six of Felony Indictment Number 11-F-319. 

The Court finds after consideration of the facts and circumstances that the 

sentence imposed is proper. Accordingly the motion for reduction of sentence is 

hereby ORDERED DENIED and that this action is DISMISSED from the docket 

of this Court. 

The court entered the order without holding a hearing on petitioner’s motion.3

Petitioner appeals this order, arguing that it did not contain findings of fact and conclusions 

of law sufficient to allow for meaningful appellate review.4 We have said that “rulings issued by 

trial courts, as a rule, must contain the requisite findings of fact and conclusions of law ‘to permit 

meaningful appellate review.’” State v. Redman, 213 W. Va. 175, 178, 578 S.E.2d 369, 372 (2003) 

(quoting, in part, Syl. Pt. 3, Fayette Cnty. Nat’l Bank v. Lilly, 199 W. Va. 349, 484 S.E.2d 232 

(1997), overruled on other grounds by Sostaric v. Marshall, 234 W. Va. 449, 766 S.E.2d 396 

(2014)). We have further recognized that when the lack of findings of fact and conclusions of law 

renders us “unable to determine the basis for the court’s decision and whether any error has 

occurred,” “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). Here, because the order makes no findings of fact or 

conclusions of law relevant to petitioner’s motions, we are unable to determine the basis for the 

circuit court’s decision and whether any error has occurred. Therefore, the matter must be 

remanded to the circuit court. 

3

 Although the circuit court’s order references a motion for reduction of sentence, the only 

motions pending before the circuit court at the time were petitioner’s motion to rescind the 

indictment and motion for appointment of counsel. It is clear that this order was intended to be the 

court’s ruling on the motion to rescind. The circuit court did not issue a ruling on petitioner’s 

motion for appointment of counsel. 

4

 Petitioner also argues on appeal that the circuit court inadvertently or mistakenly treated 

petitioner’s motion to rescind the indictment as a motion for reduction for sentence. We need not 

address this argument because we determine that the order does not contain adequate findings of 

fact and conclusions of law to enable us to adequately review the decision. 
3 

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the circuit court’s July 7, 2021, order and remand the 

matter to the circuit court. Upon remand, the circuit court shall enter an order setting forth findings 

of fact and conclusions of law sufficient to allow meaningful appellate review should petitioner 

elect to file another appeal. 

Vacated and remanded. 

ISSUED: May 2, 2023 

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Justice Elizabeth D. Walker 

Justice Tim Armstead 

Justice John A. Hutchison 

Justice William R. Wooton 

Justice C. Haley Bunn