Court Opinion

ID: 9840188
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-15 15:11:56.156704+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:10:55.013748
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                               September 15, 2023
                                                                                  EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
                              STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA                              SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                       OF WEST VIRGINIA
                            SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

Robert C. Kroner,
Plaintiff Below, Petitioner

vs.) No. 21-0997 (Berkeley County CC-02-2021-AA-3)

Everett Frazier, Commissioner,
West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles,
Defendant Below, Respondent

                               MEMORANDUM DECISION

        Petitioner Robert C. Kroner appeals the order of the Circuit Court of Berkeley County,
West Virginia, entered on November 11, 2021, that affirmed the April 15, 2021, order of the Office
of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) revoking petitioner’s driver’s license and commercial
driver’s license for driving a motor vehicle in West Virginia while under the influence of alcohol,
controlled substances, and/or drugs (“DUI”). 1 Everett Frazier, Commissioner of the West Virginia
Division of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”), responds in support of the circuit court order. 2 Upon our
review, we determine that oral argument is unnecessary and that a memorandum decision
affirming the circuit court’s order is appropriate. See W. Va. R. App. P. 21.

        On March 12, 2020, the investigating officer arrested petitioner for DUI. The “West
Virginia Driver’s Information Sheet” and documents submitted to the DMV indicate that the
investigating officer initiated a traffic stop after witnessing the petitioner’s car crossing the solid
white fog line and because the driver side brake light was not functioning. After observing
bloodshot and glassy eyes and detecting the odor of alcohol, the investigating officer questioned
petitioner, who admitted to consuming beer with dinner that night. The investigating officer
administered standardized field sobriety tests that provided impairment detection clues and
administered a preliminary breath test prior to arresting the petitioner. After being transported to
the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office, petitioner received the “West Virginia Implied Consent
Statement” and underwent the designated secondary chemical test, which indicated a blood alcohol
concentration level of .114% by weight.

       1
        Petitioner appears by counsel Bradley J. Wright. Respondent appears by Attorney General
Patrick Morrisey and Assistant Attorney General Elaine L. Skorich.
       2
         Respondent was identified below as the Department of Transportation, however, Everett
Frazier, Commissioner of the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles, is identified herein as the
appropriate respondent in this matter.
                                                  1
        On April 16, 2020, the DMV sent petitioner an order of revocation notice for DUI.
Petitioner filed a written objection and requested an administrative hearing on May 6, 2020. After
several continuances, on February 2, 2021, the OAH held a hearing. The DMV moved for
admission of the certified DMV revocation file, 3 including the “West Virginia DUI Information
Sheet” and criminal complaint completed by the investigating officer, and it was admitted into
evidence (“DMV Exhibit 1”). The investigating officer did not appear at the hearing. The petitioner
appeared at the hearing but did not testify. The OAH also entered into evidence the dismissal of
petitioner’s related criminal case, in which the prosecutor listed the reason for dismissal as
“prosecutorial discretion – Giglio issue.” 4 No other evidence was provided with regard to the
criminal dismissal, although petitioner’s counsel and the hearing examiner generally discussed at
the hearing that the investigating officer was under investigation for false swearing in a criminal
complaint. On April 15, 2021, the OAH entered its final order affirming the DMV’s DUI
revocation order. On May 5, 2021, petitioner filed an appeal with the Circuit Court of Berkeley
County, West Virginia, and filed a motion for stay of the revocation order. After a hearing on the
motion to stay, it was denied by order dated May 28, 2021.

        On November 11, 2021, the circuit court entered an order affirming the OAH’s final order.
The circuit court found that the investigating officer was not called to testify by either petitioner
or the DMV. Further, the circuit court found that there was no evidence presented related to the
meaning of the notation of a “Giglio issue” referenced in the dismissal of the criminal complaint,
only a generalized proffer. Given the general rule that dismissal of the underlying criminal case is
not considered in an administrative proceeding before the OAH for license revocation set out in
Syllabus Point 4 of Miller v. Epling, 229 W. Va. 574, 729 S.E.2d 896 (2012), the circuit court
found the vague notation and generalized proffer insufficient to rebut the presumption of accuracy
of the DMV’s administrative record, DMV Exhibit 1, and, specifically, the information provided
by the investigating officer’s report and statement in the “West Virginia DUI Information Sheet.”
The circuit court also determined that the OAH findings were not arbitrary and capricious and the

       3
         The agency file is provided in the appendix record and includes the order of revocation,
the “Intox EC/IR-II” test slip, the “West Virginia DUI Information Sheet-DMV-314,” the criminal
complaint, the “Court Disposition Reporting” form, the “Uniform Traffic Citation,” an “Implied
Consent” form, an envelope from the investigating officer to DMV, a driver history inquiry, and
the order of disqualification for petitioner’s commercial driver’s license.
       4
         It is undisputed that this is a shorthand reference to Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150
(1972). In Giglio, the government was responsible for false testimony by one of its witnesses even
though the trial prosecutor was unaware of the falsity. There, the critical witness had been
promised immunity in exchange for his testimony by an assistant district attorney and denied under
oath that he had received such an offer. The government’s failure to correct this testimony that
called into question witness credibility was found to violate constitutional due process rights and
require a new trial. Id. at 154-55; see generally In re Investigation of W. Va. State Police Crime
Lab’y, Serology Div., 190 W. Va. 321, 438 S.E.2d 501 (1993) (discussing Giglio and stating that
State bears responsibility for false evidence); see also W. Va. Trial Ct. R. 32.02(a) (providing that
State shall disclose exculpatory evidence to defendants in criminal cases pursuant to Giglio and
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)).
                                                 2
Giglio issue was not ignored by the OAH. It also concluded that the OAH properly reconciled the
evidence and provided a reasoned and articulate decision capable of being reviewed regarding the
Giglio issue. Finally, the circuit court denied petitioner’s request for a hearing to develop
additional evidence, finding that there was sufficient opportunity to do so during the OAH hearing.
Petitioner appeals this order.

        Petitioner argues before this Court that the circuit court erred when it concluded that he
failed to rebut the presumption of accuracy afforded the DUI information sheet, and when it
concluded that a “Giglio issue” with the State’s only witness was not enough to rebut that
presumption. He also argues that the circuit court erred in ruling that the OAH findings regarding
the DUI information sheet were sufficient for review and supported by evidence on the record as
a whole. This Court reviews the order on appeal under the following standard:

               “On appeal of an administrative order from a circuit court, this Court is
       bound by the statutory standards contained in W. Va. Code § 29A-5-4(a) and
       reviews questions of law presented de novo; findings of fact by the administrative
       officer are accorded deference unless the reviewing court believes the findings to
       be clearly wrong.” Syl. Pt. 1, Muscatell v. Cline, 196 W. Va. 588, 474 S.E.2d 518
       (1996). Syl. Pt. 1, Dale v. Odum, 233 W. Va. 601, 760 S.E.2d 415 (2014).

Syl. Pt. 1, Frazier v. Talbert, 245 W. Va. 293, 858 S.E.2d 918 (2021).

        We agree with the circuit court that, in this case, the vague reference to a Giglio issue in
the related criminal case was insufficient to rebut the presumption of accuracy afforded DMV
Exhibit 1 before the OAH. The OAH properly admitted into evidence DMV Exhibit 1, and, in the
administrative proceeding, it was entitled to a rebuttable presumption of accuracy. See Frazier v.
Fouch, 244 W. Va. 347, 353, 853 S.E.2d 587, 593 (2020) (discussing caselaw related to statutory
obligation of OAH to receive DMV file and the rebuttable presumption as to its accuracy); Crouch
v. W. Va. Div. of Motor Vehicles, 219 W. Va. 70, 76 n.12, 631 S.E.2d 628, 634 n.12 (2006) (noting
that the fact that a document is admissible under a statute does not preclude a challenge to the
contents of the document during the hearing and that instead it merely creates a rebuttable
presumption as to its accuracy). The general rule for OAH proceedings on license revocations is
that the dismissal of the underlying criminal case has no effect on an administrative proceeding
for license revocation. See Syl. Pt. 4, Miller v. Epling, 229 W. Va. 574, 729 S.E.2d 896 (2012). In
this case, based on petitioner’s argument, the OAH admitted evidence of the dismissal of the
related criminal case. While there was a vague reference to Giglio in the dismissal of petitioner’s
criminal case, there was no evidence or testimony explaining that reference and its application to
petitioner’s specific case. Petitioner had the opportunity to put on evidence, but he did not seek to
call the investigating officer, 5 and, based on our review of the appendix record, he did not provide

       5
          Although petitioner points to a statement by the OAH hearing examiner that he felt it was
unlikely the investigating officer would appear even if an enforcement action were undertaken,
that statement was made during the hearing. Petitioner does not indicate that he subpoenaed or
attempted to secure the investigating officer’s testimony prior to the hearing, and he did not make
a request related to the investigating officer during the administrative hearing, or seek to reopen

                                                 3
other testimony or evidence to contradict any factual statements within the DUI information sheet
or provide information regarding any Giglio issue. In addition, we agree with the circuit court that
the OAH findings were sufficient for review and supported by evidence in the appendix record as
a whole. The OAH noted petitioner’s argument but found no details were provided except that the
investigating officer was under investigation for false swearing on a criminal complaint. The OAH
also noted that petitioner did not testify in rebuttal of DMV Exhibit 1. As such, we agree with the
circuit court that the OAH findings demonstrate that it did not ignore the Giglio issue and that the
findings regarding the accuracy of DMV Exhibit 1 are sufficient for meaningful review and
supported by the appendix record as a whole. We find no error in the decision.

       For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit court’s November 11, 2021, order
affirming the order of revocation issued by the DMV.

                                                                                         Affirmed.

ISSUED: September 15, 2023

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Justice Elizabeth D. Walker
Justice Tim Armstead
Justice John A. Hutchison
Justice C. Haley Bunn

DISSENTING:

Justice William R. Wooton

Wooton, Justice, dissenting:

       I dissent to the majority’s resolution of this case. I would have set this case for oral
argument to thoroughly address the error alleged in this appeal. Having reviewed the parties’ briefs
and the issues raised therein, I believe a formal opinion of this Court was warranted, not a
memorandum decision. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

the matter for that evidence at the circuit court due to an irregularity in procedure based on the
hearing examiner’s remarks under West Virginia Code § 29A-5-4(f).
                                                 4