State v. Hutzler
| Decision Date | 14 May 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 34158.,34158. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Appellee, v. Michael S. HUTZLER, Defendant Below, Appellant. |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Syllabus Point 1, Conner v. Griffith, 160 W.Va. 680, 238 S.E.2d 529 (1977).
2. "The sections of ch. 50 of the Code, relating to the jurisdiction of [magistrates] in criminal cases, deal fully and comprehensively with that subject and are construed and interpreted as having been intended by the legislature to constitute the exclusive rule and law defining such jurisdiction and prescribing the mode of exercise thereof, and to be a substitute for all former statutory or common law pertaining to that subject." Syllabus Point 2, Ex Parte Gilbert, 78 W.Va. 658, 90 S.E. 111 (1916).
3. "A duly elected [magistrate] who resides in the district for which he was elected is authorized and empowered to exercise within the county in which such district is located the jurisdiction conferred upon him by the Constitution and the statutes of this State[.]" Syllabus Point 1, in part, State ex rel. Moats v. Janco, Sheriff, 154 W.Va. 887, 180 S.E.2d 74 (1971).
4. Pursuant to this State's constitutional and statutory law, a magistrate court does not have jurisdiction to convict or sentence a criminal defendant for a felony offense or an offense that is not committed in the county in which the magistrate court is established.
5. "In determining what consequences should flow from the State's breach of its duty to preserve evidence, a trial court should consider (1) the degree of negligence or bad faith involved; (2) the importance of the missing evidence considering the probative value and reliability of secondary or substitute evidence that remains available; and (3) the sufficiency of the other evidence produced at the trial to sustain the conviction." Syllabus Point 2, in part, State v. Osakalumi, 194 W.Va. 758, 461 S.E.2d 504 (1995).
Kevin D. Mills, Esq., Mills & Wagner, Martinsburg, WV, for Michael S. Hutzler.
Christopher C. Quasebarth, Esq., Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Martinsburg, WV, for the State.
The appellant, Michael S. Hutzler, appeals his conviction of felony destruction of property in the Circuit Court of Berkeley County on the bases that the double jeopardy clauses of the federal and state constitutions bar the conviction and the State wrongfully destroyed evidence. After considering the parties' arguments, the record below, and the applicable law, we find no merit to the appellant's assignments of error. Accordingly, we affirm.
The appellant was originally charged in the Magistrate Court of Jefferson County with the misdemeanor offenses of domestic assault, assault, possession of cocaine, knowingly giving false or misleading information to a member of the West Virginia State Police, destruction of property, and the felony offenses of grand larceny and burglary.
The State alleged below that in the early morning hours of October 16, 2005, the appellant broke and entered the residence of his former girlfriend, Sharla K. Hollida, which is located in Martinsburg in Berkeley County. While at Ms. Hollida's residence, the appellant damaged and stole various items.
The State further alleged that Ms. Hollida returned home and discovered the appellant in the act of burglarizing her home. At that point, Ms. Hollida called her boyfriend John Campbell and the police. She then left to meet Mr Campbell with whom she returned to her residence to find the appellant still there. The appellant then entered his vehicle and chased Mr. Campbell's vehicle, in which Ms. Hollida was a passenger, into adjoining Jefferson County where the appellant attempted to run Mr. Campbell's vehicle off the road. In Jefferson County, the appellant was stopped by State Trooper M.J. Glende who discovered property belonging to Ms. Hollida in the appellant's vehicle. Upon being questioned about this property, the appellant lied to State Trooper Glende regarding its ownership. Also at this time, State Trooper Glende discovered a small amount of cocaine in the appellant's vehicle. The appellant subsequently admitted his actions in a written statement taken by Trooper Glende which confirmed Ms. Hollida's description of the events.
A preliminary hearing was ultimately held in the Magistrate Court of Jefferson County on the charges brought against the appellant. At that hearing, the appellant pled guilty to the misdemeanor offenses of domestic assault and assault. He was sentenced to six months of imprisonment on each charge, with each sentence to run consecutively. These sentences were suspended in lieu of six months unsupervised probation per charge for a total of one year unsupervised probation. A condition of probation was that the appellant pay within 90 days $5,000 in restitution to Ms. Hollida. The remaining charges of burglary, grand larceny, destruction of property, possession of cocaine, and false information were dismissed. On the disposition sheets of these charges there are notations that each charge was "dismissed per plea." On March 28, 2007, the Magistrate Court of Jefferson County discharged the appellant from probation due to the successful completion of the terms and conditions of the probation as set forth in the plea agreement.
Meanwhile, in February 2007, the appellant was indicted in Berkeley County for burglary, grand larceny, and felony destruction of property arising from the same events which gave rise to the Jefferson County charges against the appellant. The appellant subsequently filed motions to dismiss these charges based on double jeopardy and the State's destruction of potentially exculpatory blood evidence. With regard to the destruction of evidence, Trooper Glende had destroyed blood evidence taken from Ms. Hollida's vehicle and residence apparently due to his belief that all of the charges against the appellant had been dismissed per the appellant's plea in the Magistrate Court of Jefferson County. In support of his motion to dismiss, the appellant provided affidavits from himself and his counsel in which both swore to their understanding that all of the charges had been dismissed with prejudice by the magistrate court as part of the appellant's plea. The State responded to the motion to dismiss arguing that the Magistrate Court of Jefferson County never had jurisdiction over the burglary, grand larceny, and destruction of property charges, and that the charges were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction rather than pursuant to the plea agreement. In support of its response, the State included the affidavit of the Assistant Prosecuting Attorney of Jefferson County in which he swore that he only learned that Jefferson County lacked jurisdiction on the day of the plea hearing at which time he informed the appellant and his counsel that the charges were being dismissed because of a lack of jurisdiction.
By order dated August 31, 2007, the Berkeley County Circuit Court denied the appellant's motion to dismiss the State's prosecution of him in that court. With regard to the appellant's double jeopardy claim, the court found that the burglary, grand larceny, and destruction of property charges all occurred in Berkeley County, and therefore the Magistrate Court of Jefferson County never had jurisdiction of these charges. Because the Magistrate Court of Jefferson County lacked jurisdiction, the appellant had never been placed in jeopardy for these charges in the magistrate court. With regard to the destruction of evidence claim, the court found that the effect of the destroyed evidence was minimal because of the substantial amount of additional evidence that existed against the appellant.
Thereafter, the appellant pled guilty in the Circuit Court of Berkeley County to felony destruction of property. The court sentenced the appellant to not less than one year nor more than ten years, but suspended the sentence in lieu of three years of probation. Significantly, this was a conditional plea pursuant to West Virginia Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(a)(2)1 wherein the appellant was permitted to preserve his double jeopardy and destruction of evidence claims for appeal to this Court. Accordingly, if the appellant were to prevail on appeal, he would be allowed to withdraw his plea.
By order of June 11, 2008, this Court granted the appellant's petition for appeal. We now proceed to consider the appellant's assignments of error.
We are first asked to review whether the circuit court properly ruled that double jeopardy does not bar the appellant's prosecution in the Circuit Court of Berkeley County. This Court has held that "a double jeopardy claim [is] reviewed de novo." Syllabus Point 1, in part, State v. Sears, 196 W.Va. 71, 468 S.E.2d 324 (1996). Second, we are asked to review whether the circuit court properly ruled that the State's destruction of evidence does not mandate the dismissal of the charges against the appellant. Concerning this matter, Syllabus Point 4, Burgess v. Porterfield, 196 W.Va. 178, 469 S.E.2d 114 (1996). With these standards to guide us, we proceed to consider the issues herein.
The first assignment of error asserted by the appellant is that the Circuit Court of Berkeley County erred in finding that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Juvan v. Eppich
...was obtained in the absence of jurisdiction because such a conviction is a nullity, and jeopardy does not attach."); State v. Hutzler, 677 S.E.2d 655, 661 (W. Va. 2009) (finding court in county where appellant was originally convicted "did not have jurisdiction of the offenses . . . , we fi......