1

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

State of West Virginia, 

Plaintiff Below, Respondent 

vs.) No. 19-0898 (Marion County 18-F-32)

Jeffrey Dumire,

Defendant Below, Petitioner 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Self-represented petitioner Jeffrey Dumire appeals the Circuit Court of Marion County’s 

September 6, 2019, order denying petitioner’s “Motion to Resentence for Direct Appeal Purposes” 

and “Motion for Appointment of Appellate Counsel.” The State of West Virginia, by counsel Holly 

M. Flanigan, 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 denying his motion for resentencing without setting forth any findings 

of fact or 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 Resentence for Direct Appeal Purposes.”

Petitioner was indicted by a Marion County grand jury in July of 2017 on two counts of 

first-degree sexual abuse and one count of sexual abuse by a parent, guardian, or custodian. In 

June of 2018, petitioner entered into a plea agreement, agreeing to plead guilty to one count of 

first-degree sexual abuse; one count of sexual abuse by a parent, guardian, or custodian; and one 

count of first-degree sexual assault. Following the entry of petitioner’s plea, in September of 2018, 

the circuit court sentenced petitioner to 40 to 145 years of incarceration for his various convictions. 

In October of 2018, petitioner sent a letter to his trial counsel, Mr. Zachary Dyer, asking 

him to file a notice of intent to appeal, a petition for suspension of his sentence, a petition for 

FILED

November 4, 2020

EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA
2

correction or reduction of his sentence, and a copy of discovery, among other requests. The docket 

sheet does not reflect that Mr. Dyer filed any motions on behalf of petitioner.

On August 21, 2019, petitioner, without counsel, filed a “Motion to Resentence for Direct 

Appeal Purposes” and “Motion for Appointment of Appellate Counsel.” Petitioner’s motion for 

resentencing noted that he told his trial counsel that he desired to file an appeal challenging his 

sentence on various grounds. Petitioner further contended that his trial counsel, Mr. Dyer, failed 

to file an appeal. In his resentencing motion, petitioner asserted that: (1) he had a right to appeal 

his conviction from a guilty plea; (2) appellate rights cannot be destroyed by counsel’s inactions 

or a defendant’s delay in notifying the court of such inaction; (3) trial counsel should have known 

that petitioner desired to file an appeal, as a rational defendant would want to appeal a 

disproportionate sentence; (4) petitioner communicated to counsel a desire to appeal; and (5) due 

to trial counsel’s deficient performance, petitioner is entitled to resentencing.

The next month, without holding a hearing, the circuit court denied petitioner’s motions

without making any findings of fact or conclusions of law. The order provided as follows:

On August 21, 2019, a “Motion to Resentence for Direct Appeal Purposes” 

and a “Motion for Appointment of Appellate Counsel” were filed by the defendant, 

Jeffrey Dumire, pro se.

Having reviewed the written motions, as well as the entire court file, this 

[c]ourt is of the opinion that there are no appealable issues, that the defendant is not 

entitled to the relief sought in his motions and, further, that no hearing with regard 

thereto is warranted. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that defendant’s Motion to Resentence for 

Direct Appeal Purposes and Motion for Appointment of Appellate Counsel are 

hereby DENIED, without hearing.

Petitioner appeals from that September 6, 2019, order.

Our standard of review has been stated as follows:

“In reviewing challenges to the findings and conclusions of the circuit court, 

we apply a two-prong deferential standard of review. We review the final order and 

the ultimate disposition under an abuse of discretion standard, and we review the 

circuit court’s underlying factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard. 

Questions of law are subject to a de novo review.” Syl. Pt. 2, Walker v. West 

Virginia Ethics Commission, 201 W.Va. 108, 492 S.E.2d 167 (1997).

Syl. Pt. 1, State v. Meadows, 231 W. Va. 10, 743 S.E.2d 318 (2013).

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

motion to resentence for purposes of pursuing a direct appeal. The State concedes that the circuit 

court’s order does not contain appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law “to permit 
3

meaningful appellate review” by this Court. State v. Redman, 213 W. Va. 175, 178, 578 S.E.2d 

369, 372 (2003). 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 September 6, 2019, order denying petitioner’s 

“Motion to Resentence for Direct Appeal Purposes” and “Motion for Appointment of Appellate 

Counsel.” Upon remand, the circuit court shall enter an order setting 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: November 4, 2020

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Justice Tim Armstead

Justice Margaret L. Workman

Justice Elizabeth D. Walker

Justice Evan H. Jenkins

Justice John A. Hutchison