Court Opinion

ID: 9961079
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-17 19:19:49.059058+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:11.803324
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

                                 January 2024 Term

                              _____________________

                                    No. 22-685
                              _____________________

                           STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA,
                            Plaintiff Below, Respondent,

                                         v.

                           KRISTEN NICOLE WETZEL,
                            Defendant Below, Petitioner.

        ___________________________________________________________

                   Appeal from the Circuit Court of Barbour County
                          Honorable Shawn D. Nines, Judge
                             Criminal Action No. 20-F-48

                                AFFIRMED
         _________________________________________________________

                            Submitted: February 21, 2024
                               Filed: April 17, 2024

Morris C. Davis, Esq.                           Patrick Morrisey, Esq.
The Nestor Law Office                           Attorney General
Elkins, West Virginia                           Frankie Dame, Esq.
Attorney for Petitioner                         Assistant Solicitor General
                                                Ronald T. Goudy, Esq.
                                                Assistant Attorney General
                                                Charleston, West Virginia
                                                Attorneys for Respondent

JUSTICE HUTCHISON delivered the Opinion of the Court.
                                      SYLLABUS

             “‘“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).’ Syllabus Point 1, State v. Collins, 238 W. Va. 123, 792 S.E.2d

622 (2016).” Syl. Pt. 1, State v. Walker, 244 W. Va. 61, 851 S.E.2d 507 (2020).

                                             i
HUTCHISON, Justice:

              The petitioner and defendant below, Kirsten Nicole Wetzel, appeals a July

15, 2022, order, entered by the Circuit Court of Barbour County denying her motion to

correct her sentence for her conviction of unlawful taking of a vehicle, also known as

“joyriding,” pursuant to West Virginia Code § 17-8-4(a) (1999). 1 The petitioner sought an

order from the circuit court declaring that she is entitled to good time credit 2 while serving

the portion of her sentence requiring 240 hours of actual incarceration. In this appeal, the

petitioner argues that the circuit court erred in finding that its sentencing order does not

prevent her from receiving good time credit. Having considered the parties’ briefs and

oral arguments, the submitted appendix record, and the pertinent authorities, we find no

error and, therefore, affirm the circuit court’s order.

                          I. Facts and Procedural Background

              On November 5, 2020, the petitioner was indicted by a Barbour County

grand jury on one felony count of burglary 3 and one misdemeanor count of joyriding.

       1
          West Virginia Code § 17A-8-4(a) provides, in pertinent part: “Any person who
drives a vehicle, not his or her own, without consent of the owner thereof, and with intent
temporarily to deprive said owner of his or her possession of such vehicle, without intent
to steal the same, is guilty of a misdemeanor.”
       2
           See State ex rel. Valentine v. Watkins, 208 W. Va. 26, 32, 537 S.E.2d 647, 653
(2000) (explaining “‘good time’ credit contemplates a reduction of or ‘commutation from
. . . sentence[ ] for good conduct’” (additional citation omitted)).
       3
        See W. Va. Code § 61-3-11(a) (2018) (“Any person who breaks and enters, or
enters without breaking, a dwelling house or outbuilding adjoining a dwelling with the
                                               1
Subsequently, she reached a plea agreement with the State whereby she agreed to plead

guilty to the joyriding charge in exchange for dismissal of the burglary count and dismissal

of a pending misdemeanor charge against her then boyfriend, now husband, arising out of

the same incident. In addition to dismissal of the other charges, the State agreed to

recommend a sentence of six months of incarceration with the petitioner only serving ten

days of actual confinement and the remainder of the sentence suspended in favor of

probation.

                The petitioner appeared before the circuit court on July 30, 2021, and entered

a guilty plea to joyriding in accordance with the plea agreement. After accepting the plea,

the circuit court proceeded to sentencing 4 and adopted the State’s recommended sentence.

Accordingly, the sentencing order entered on August 19, 2021, provided:

                        Based upon the testimony and proffer of the parties, the
                Court thereupon ORDERED the Defendant SENTENCED to
                the West Virginia State Regional Jail for six (6) months. The
                Court ORDERED that the Defendant shall serve ten (10) days
                of actual incarceration and the remaining sentence shall be
                suspended and the Defendant placed on unsupervised
                probation for one year. The Defendant can serve the ten days
                in jail on weekends, but the ten days in jail shall be served
                within six months from entry of this order.

intent to commit a violation of the criminal laws of this state is guilty of a felony and, upon
conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned in a state correctional facility for not less than one
nor more than 15 years.”).
       4
           The petitioner waived her right to a presentence investigation and report.
                                               2
Thereafter, the circuit court amended the certified commitment order that was sent to the

West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation by changing the term of

incarceration from ten days to 240 hours in actual incarceration.

              On January 28, 2022, the petitioner filed a motion pursuant to Rule 35(a) of

the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure, seeking correction of her sentence. 5 She

asserted:

                     After further discussion with officials at the Tygart’s
              Valley Regional Jail, it was related to counsel that Defendant
              is being denied her good time because of the language
              contained within the sentencing order. Specifically, the
              Defendant is being denied her good time credit because the
              commitment order states that she must do a period of “actual
              incarceration,” for a period of “240 hours,” instead of ten days.
              The Defendant seeks amendment of these terms to “ten days of
              incarceration” so that she might receive credit for her good
              time.

 The circuit court held a hearing on the petitioner’s motion on March 9, 2022.

              By order entered July 15, 2022, the circuit court denied the petitioner’s

motion to correct her sentence. The order indicates that at the March 9, 2022, hearing,

                    [t]he Defendant called Major Brian Clouser, Chief
              Correctional Officer, as representative of the West Virginia
              Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation . . . Major Brian
              Clouser testified that the Defendant has served a total of one-
              hundred twenty hours (120) hours at the regional jail with “no

       5
         Rule 35(a) provides: “The court may correct an illegal sentence at any time and
may correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner within the time period provided herein
for the reduction of sentence.”
                                             3
              good time” credit. Major Brian Clouser testified that the
              Defendant was not entitled to “good time” because the
              commitment order stated that she is to serve two hundred and
              forty hours of actual incarceration of her six-month sentence.
              The Defendant was not a model inmate while at the regional
              jail but did not have any violations that would prohibit her from
              receiving good time if she was entitled to it. Upon questioning
              by the Court, Major Brian Clouser testified that if an inmate
              entered the regional jail at 11:00 p.m. and left at 11:00 a.m. the
              next day, the inmate would be credited with serving two days
              even though the inmate only served twelve hours because the
              inmate was technically incarcerated on two different days.

In denying the petitioner’s motion, the circuit court explained:

                      The Defendant’s original Sentencing Order required the
              Defendant to serve ten (10) days of actual incarceration. The
              Court changed that order because the Court had allowed the
              Defendant to serve her sentence as she saw fit in time frames
              no less than twelve hours and over the course of six months. A
              situation could arise where a Defendant could enter the
              regional jail at 11:00 p.m. and leave at 11:00 a.m. the next day
              and receive credit for serving two days, when in fact the
              Defendant served only half a day. For this reason, the Court
              modified the order from serving ten days actual incarceration
              to two-hundred forty hours of actual incarceration.

The circuit court then found:

                     The issue of good time, awarding, denying, or
              calculating it, has historically been in the discretion of the West
              Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Any
              defendant can file a civil action against the West Virginia
              Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation if that defendant
              believes they are being denied “good time” or being unlawfully
              confined. The issue at bar is much more akin to a habeas
              proceeding based on the conditions of confinement, wherein
              the proper parties are the warden and the defendant and the
              proper venue is the location of incarceration.

                      ....

                                              4
                     The Court is not prohibiting the Defendant from
              receiving “good time” nor is it directing the West Virginia
              Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation to deny her “good
              time.” Likewise, it is not ordering the Division of Corrections
              and Rehabilitation to grant Defendant good time; rather the
              Court defers to the West Virginia Division of Corrections and
              Rehabilitation on whether it determines Defendant is entitled
              to “good time” under the laws of West Virginia.

                     If the Defendant believes she should be receiving credit
              for “good time,” then the Defendant should file a civil action
              against the West Virginia Division of Corrections and
              Rehabilitation.

Finally, the order indicates that the petitioner was given three months to “review her legal

options.” Upon expiration of those three months and no notice from the petitioner that she

had filed any action against the West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation,

the circuit court entered its order denying her motion to correct her sentence. This appeal

followed.

                                 II. Standard of Review

              Our standard of review for an appeal of an order denying a Rule 35 motion

is well established. As set forth in syllabus point one of State v. Walker, 244 W. Va. 61,

851 S.E.2d 507 (2020),

                     “‘[i]n 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

                                             5
              507 (1996).” Syllabus Point 1, State v. Collins, 238 W. Va.
              123, 792 S.E.2d 622 (2016).

                                      III. Discussion

              In this appeal, the petitioner contends that her sentence for her joyriding

conviction is illegal or, alternatively, has been imposed in an illegal manner because

requiring her to serve a period of “240 hours of actual confinement” has resulted in her

being denied good time credit. She argues that the circuit court cannot deny her good time

credit because it “is a right created by the Legislature” as this Court recognized in syllabus

point eight of Woodring v. Whyte, 161 W. Va. 262, 242 S.E.2d 238 (1978). She maintains

that the uncontroverted testimony given by Major Clouser at the hearing on her Rule 35(a)

motion clearly established that she has not received good time credit because of the

language used in the sentencing order. Thus, the petitioner reasons that the circuit court

had a duty to correct her sentence under Rule 35(a) and abused its discretion when it found

that its sentencing order does not prohibit her from receiving good time credit.

              Pursuant to the statute criminalizing joyriding, “[a]ny person violating the

provisions of this section is, for the first offense, guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon

conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars, or confined in the

county or regional jail not more than six months, or both[.]” W. Va. Code § 17A-8-4(b).

As set forth above, the circuit court imposed the six-month sentence provided by the statute

upon the petitioner, and then immediately suspended all but 240 hours of that sentence and

                                              6
placed her on probation. West Virginia Code § 62-12-1 (1975) 6 authorizes circuit courts

to place any person convicted of a crime on probation and West Virginia Code § 62-12-9

(2013) 7 permits circuit courts to impose a period of confinement as a condition of

probation. In that regard, West Virginia Code § 62-12-9(b) provides:

                    [T]he court may impose, subject to modification at any
              time, any other conditions [of probation] which it may
              determine advisable, including but not limited to . . .

                             ....

                      (4) That the probationer, in the discretion of the court,
              is required to serve a period of confinement in jail of the county
              in which he or she was convicted for a period not to exceed one
              third of the minimum sentence established by law or one third
              of the least possible period of confinement in an indeterminate
              sentence, but in no case may the period of confinement exceed
              six consecutive months. The court may sentence the defendant
              within the six-month period to intermittent periods of
              confinement including, but not limited to, weekends or
              holidays and may grant to the defendant intermittent periods of
              release in order that he or she may work at his or her
              employment or for other reasons or purposes as the court may
              determine appropriate: Provided, That the provisions of article
              eleven-a of this chapter do not apply to intermittent periods of
              confinement and release except to the extent directed by the
              court. If a period of confinement is required as a condition of
              probation, the court shall make special findings that other
              conditions of probation are inadequate and that a period of
              confinement is necessary.

       6
        West Virginia Code § 62-12-1 provides: “Any circuit court of this State shall have
authority as provided in this article to place on probation any person convicted of a crime.”
       7
        West Virginia Code § 62-12-9 was amended in 2023. Although only stylistic
changes were made to the provision relevant in this appeal, we cite to the 2013 version
because it was in effect at the time of the petitioner’s sentencing.
                                              7
Interpreting this provision, this Court has held:

                     The legislative intent reflected in the provisions of West
              Virginia Code § 62-12-9(b)(4) (1994) (Repl. Vol. 2000) 8 is to
              establish a six-month limit for the period of incarceration
              which may be imposed as a condition of probation. When a
              minimum or indeterminate sentence is involved, then the
              maximum term of incarceration as a condition of probation is
              one-third of the express minimum or indeterminate sentence or
              six months, whichever is less; for all other types of statutory
              penalties, the maximum term of incarceration as a condition of
              probation is six months.

Syl. Pt. 4, State v. McClain, 211 W. Va. 61, 561 S.E.2d 783 (2002) (footnote added).

              Upon review, we find no merit to the petitioner’s claim that the circuit court

imposed an illegal sentence. The petitioner’s sentence of six months in the regional jail for

her conviction clearly falls within the limitations set forth in West Virginia Code § 17A-8-

4(b). Likewise, the suspension of the petitioner’s sentence in favor of probation with the

condition that she serve 240 hours of actual confinement in jail complies with West

Virginia Code §§ 62-12-1 and 62-12-9(b)(4) as well as this Court’s holding in syllabus

point four of McClain. Because the petitioner’s sentence is within the statutory limits, it is

a legal sentence.

       8
         The language at issue has remained unchanged despite the subsequent amendments
to the statute. See supra note 7.
                                              8
              As for the petitioner’s argument that the circuit court imposed her sentence

in an illegal manner 9 by requiring her to serve her period of confinement in terms of hours

and not days, she has not provided any authority to support her contention and we are

unaware of any restriction in that regard. Indeed, “[s]entences imposed by the trial court,

if within statutory limits and if not based on some [im]permissible factor, are not subject

to appellate review.” Syl. Pt. 4, State v. Goodnight, 169 W. Va. 366, 287 S.E.2d 504

(1982); see also Syl. Pt. 1, in part, State v. Lucas, 201 W. Va. 271, 496 S.E.2d 221 (1997)

(“The Supreme Court of Appeals reviews sentencing orders . . . under a deferential abuse

of discretion standard, unless the order violates statutory or constitutional commands.”).

Accordingly, there is no merit to the petitioner’s argument that her sentence was imposed

in an illegal manner.

              While the petitioner maintains that she is entitled to good time credit while

serving her period of confinement, we agree with the circuit court that the issue falls within

the discretion of the West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation. As this

Court has observed, “The provisions of West Virginia Code § 28-5-27 (1992) [now West

Virginia Code § 15A-4-17 (2021)] solely govern the accumulation of ‘good time’ for

inmates sentenced to the West Virginia State Penitentiary.” Syl. Pt. 3, State v. Jarvis, 199

W. Va. 635, 487 S.E.2d 293 (1997). That statute provides that the calculation of good time

       9
        In considering the petitioner’s argument that her sentence was imposed in an illegal
manner, we assume without deciding that she could satisfy the time limitation placed upon
such a claim under Rule 35(a).
                                              9
credit and the rules and policies related thereto are delegated to the Commissioner of the

Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation. See W. Va. Code § 15A-4-17. As such, there

is no basis to grant the petitioner any relief under Rule 35(a) of the West Virginia Rules of

Criminal Procedure.

                                     IV. Conclusion

              Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the July 15, 2022, order of the

Circuit Court of Barbour County is affirmed.

                                                                              Affirmed.

                                             10