Court Opinion

ID: 9926989
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-25 22:35:03.776832+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:30.597481
License: Public Domain

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
                          SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                        FILED
                                                                                January 25, 2024
State of West Virginia,                                                           C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK
                                                                                SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
Plaintiff Below, Respondent
                                                                                     OF WEST VIRGINIA

vs.) No. 22-665 (Berkeley County 14-F-63)

Richard Ruffner,
Defendant Below, Petitioner

                              MEMORANDUM DECISION

        Petitioner Richard Ruffner appeals the Circuit Court of Berkeley County’s July 20, 2022,
order that revoked his probation and imposed his suspended sentence.1 On appeal, petitioner argues
that the court erred when it denied his request to continue his probation after his third probation
violation. Upon our review, finding no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error, 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(c).

        Following a series of grave robberies, petitioner was convicted of twenty-three counts of
disinterment of a dead body and one count of felony conspiracy. In the sentences at issue in this
appeal,2 petitioner’s aggregate twenty-seven year prison sentence was suspended in favor of five
years of probation. After he admitted to three separate probation violations,3 the court ultimately
revoked his probation and imposed his underlying suspended sentences, and petitioner is currently

       1
         Petitioner appears by counsel Jonathan T. O’Dell. Respondent appears by Attorney
General Patrick Morrisey and Assistant Attorney General Andrea Nease Proper.
       2
         Petitioner was sentenced in two sentencing groups: Group A and Group B. Petitioner’s
Group A sentences were discharged prior to this appeal and the issue before this Court concerns
only the Group B sentences.

       3
         Petitioner admitted to two occasions of contact with the victim and to being discharged
from his required substance abuse treatment program at a sober living facility, all in violation of
the terms of his probation.

                                                1
incarcerated on those sentences.4 Petitioner appeals and claims that the court relied upon
impermissible factors when it refused to grant him continued probation.

        We have noted that “[p]robation is a matter of grace and not a matter of right.” Syl. Pt. 2,
State v. Hosby, 220 W. Va. 560, 648 S.E.2d 66 (2007) (citation omitted).5

               “When reviewing the findings of fact and conclusions of law of a circuit
       court sentencing a defendant following a revocation of probation, we apply a three-
       pronged standard of review. We review the decision on the probation revocation
       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. Duke, 200
       W.Va. 356, 489 S.E.2d 738 (1997).

Syl. Pt. 2, State v. Cookman, 240 W. Va. 527, 813 S.E.2d 769 (2018).

       West Virginia Code § 62-12-10(a)(1)(C) expressly provides that “the court or judge may
revoke the suspension of imposition or execution of sentence, impose sentence if none has been
imposed and order that sentence be executed” where a probationer has violated a condition of
probation designed either to protect the public or a victim. Although petitioner concedes that he
repeatedly violated the terms of his probation and that this statute allows for the revocation of
probation, he argues that the same statute affords the court discretion to release him back to
probation. Additionally, he argues that the court was biased against him and relied upon improper
and inaccurate information when it failed to afford him probation yet again.6 However, petitioner’s

       4
          Prior to the revocation that led to the sentencing on appeal, the State petitioned for
revocation on two other occasions. When his probation began in April 2015, petitioner failed to
report to the probation office as ordered, and his failure prompted the filing of a petition for
revocation. After he admitted to the allegations in the initial petition, he was placed back on
probation. Later, in April of 2021, petitioner was arrested for unlawful restraint, domestic assault,
and brandishing a deadly weapon, and the State filed a second petition for revocation. Petitioner
admitted to the allegations in that petition, was ordered to undergo a twenty-eight day residential
substance abuse program, and then to jail until a six-to-nine month treatment program became
available. At that time, the circuit court amended the terms of petitioner’s probation to require
inpatient substance abuse treatment.
       5
         “[A] defendant convicted of a crime has no absolute right to probation, probation being a
matter of grace only, extended by the State to a defendant convicted of a crime, in certain
circumstances and on certain conditions.” State ex rel. Winter v. MacQueen, 161 W. Va. 30, 32-
33, 239 S.E.2d 660, 661-62 (1977).
       6
        Petitioner argued that the court improperly relied upon his mental health problems in
denying him probation. However, the court did not mention petitioner’s mental health in its order.
Additionally, petitioner’s argument that the court improperly held his socioeconomic status against
him when it addressed his lack of permanent housing and his failure to pay restitution, is not

                                                 2
arguments are belied by the record on appeal. In denying petitioner’s request for continued
probation, the court considered the record before it, including the home confinement suitability
report7 and the testimony of the home confinement officer that petitioner was an unsuitable
candidate for home confinement for multiple reasons including: his criminal history; domestic
violence issues; his drug history; and his refusal to comply with the court’s order that prohibited
his contact with his domestic violence victim.8 Accordingly, the court explained its reasoning in
the order and provided a rationale for reinstating petitioner’s original sentence under West Virginia
Code § 62-12-10 (a)(1)(C). Considering all of these factors, the court opined that “the [c]ourt does
not believe that placing the Defendant on supervision or alternative sentencing will be successful.”
Based on our review of the record on appeal, we do not find that the court relied on any
impermissible sentencing factors, inaccurate information, or bias against petitioner in its decision
to deny petitioner’s motion for alternative sentencing. Therefore, we decline to find that the court
abused its discretion in its July 20, 2022, order, and, accordingly, petitioner is entitled to no relief.
        For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

                                                                                              Affirmed.

ISSUED: January 25, 2024

CONCURRED IN BY:

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

supported by the record on appeal. Likewise, petitioner’s argument that the court exhibited bias
against him is also unavailing.
        7
         The report detailed petitioner’s history of seventeen arrests and at least eight convictions,
seven of which involved domestic battery or domestic assault. Although petitioner maintains that
this report contained inaccurate information, we note that neither petitioner nor his counsel
objected to the contents of the report at the July 12, 2022, hearing.
        8
         The court also expressly considered: petitioner’s criminal history; that petitioner had been
afforded various opportunities for probation and alternative sentencing and had consistently
violated his probation; the suitability of petitioner’s placement in a sober living facility;
petitioner’s continued contact with an individual, in violation of court orders; petitioner’s failure
to make any payment toward his restitution obligation; and petitioner’s failure to perform his
community service obligations.

                                                   3