Opinion ID: 1415670
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Probation Order of June 2002

Text: With regard to the Appellant's contention that the lower court erred by placing him on probation upon his May 2002 return from New Dominion School, the State maintains that the Appellant waived his opportunity to raise that issue as error by failing to appeal the probation order in a timely fashion. The State suggests that because the Appellant failed to appeal that order, he has waived his right to raise it as an appellate issue in the case subjudice. See Hustead on Behalf of Adkins v. Ashland Oil, Inc., 197 W.Va. 55, 62, 475 S.E.2d 55, 62 (1996) (observing that Appellant's failure to appeal the final judgment order entered by the circuit court brought finality to that judgment, thereby ending any controversy or adverseness between the parties); Syl. Pt. 3, State v. Asbury, 187 W.Va. 87, 415 S.E.2d 891 (1992) (holding that [f]ailure to make timely and proper objection ... constitutes a waiver of the right to raise the question thereafter either in the trial court or in the appellate court). Based upon the clear failure of the Appellant to challenge the probation order through means of an appeal, we cannot consider any non-jurisdictional challenge to that order. See Whitlow v. Board of Educ., 190 W.Va. 223, 226, 438 S.E.2d 15, 18 (1993) (acknowledging general rule that failure to raise non-jurisdictional issues below precludes appellate consideration). The Appellant does not specify any precise condition of probation to which he presently objects and appears to premise his assignment of error upon the general fact that the lower court placed him on probation after his success at New Dominion. Consequently, we find that the Appellant's current challenge to the lower court's decision to place the Appellant on probation has not been raised in a timely fashion. The order was entered in June 2002, and the Appellant did not appeal that order. Based upon the foregoing, we find that the lower court's order placing the Appellant on probation after his tenure at the New Dominion School was not appealed in a timely fashion, and the Appellant is not entitled to the relief he currently seeks on that issue. We further find that the lower court did not err in its findings of facts and conclusions of law; did not fail to accord the Appellant with the least restrictive alternative; and did not otherwise err in ordering the Appellant to Timber Ridge. [6] Based upon the assertions of the Appellant, his tenure at Timber Ridge was expected to conclude by March or June 2004; if such estimates were correct, school attendance issues are no longer problematic for the Appellant. Affirmed.