State v. Whetzel
| Decision Date | 30 May 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 23846,23846 |
| Parties | STATE of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Appellee, v. Christopher WHETZEL, Defendant Below, Appellant. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. "In ascertaining legislative intent, effect must be given to each part of the statute and to the statute as a whole so as to accomplish the general purpose of the legislation." Syllabus Point 2, Smith v. State Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, 159 W.Va. 108, 219 S.E.2d 361 (1975).
2. The Legislature, in adopting W.Va.Code § 61-11A-4 intended that accessories be required to make restitution for the physical, psychological or economic injury or loss to a victim caused by the commission of the principal offense.
Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Attorney General, Molly M. McGinley, Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, for Appellee.
James Paul Geary, II, C. Carter Williams, Geary & Geary, L.C., Petersburg, for Appellant.
This is an appeal by Christopher Whetzel from an order of the Circuit Court of Hardy County sentencing him to one year in the county jail for the misdemeanor offense of being an accessory after the fact to second degree arson and also sentencing him to two consecutive terms of from one-to-five years in the state penitentiary on two charges of conspiracy to commit entering without breaking. The circuit court also ordered the appellant to make substantial restitution to the victims of the crimes charged. On appeal the appellant challenges the circuit court's restitution order and claims that the circuit court erred in entering that order. After reviewing the issues presented and the documents filed in this case, this Court disagrees with the appellant. The judgment of the Circuit Court of Hardy County is, therefore, affirmed.
In late 1995 a grand jury in Hardy County returned a six-count indictment against the appellant charging him with committing various crimes in Hardy County in April, May and June 1995. The first count charged him with the second-degree burning of a barn owned by one Leonard Martin in April 1995. The second count asserted that he had engaged in the second degree arson of a structure owned by Hardy County Farm Services, Inc., in May 1995. The third count charged him with entering without breaking a store building owned by Hardy County Farm Services, Inc., in June 1995. The fourth count asserted that in June 1995 he had conspired with Chadrick Damon Crites to enter without breaking Hardy County Farm Services, Inc. The fifth count charged that in June 1995 he had attempted to enter without breaking the Hardy County Farm Services, Inc. store building, and the sixth count asserted that in June 1995 he had conspired with Chadrick Damon Crites to enter without breaking the Hardy County Farm Services, Inc. store.
Following the return of the indictment the appellant's attorney entered into plea negotiations with the Prosecuting Attorney of Hardy County. As a result of those negotiations, the parties entered into a plea bargain agreement under which the appellant agreed to plead guilty to being an accessory after the fact to the second degree arson of the Martin barn in April 1995, and also agreed to plead guilty to the two counts charging him with conspiracy to enter the Hardy County Farm Services, Inc. store building. The agreement provided that sentencing would be left to the discretion of the circuit court. It was stipulated that the appellant would pay restitution for the conspiracy offenses in the amount of $846.39. The agreement also specifically provided, "The State shall neither recommend nor oppose consecutive or concurrent sentencing and will leave such sentencing to the discretion of the Court."
The plea bargain agreement was presented to the Circuit Court of Hardy County, and the circuit court conducted a hearing at which the court questioned the defendant. In the course of the questioning the court asked the appellant: The appellant responded, "Yes, sir."
At the conclusion of the hearing the court accepted the appellant's guilty pleas, and directed that the appellant undergo evaluation. After the evaluation the court sentenced the appellant to one year in the county jail for being an accessory after the fact to the second-degree arson of the Martin barn. The circuit court also directed that the appellant serve two indeterminate consecutive sentences from one-to-five years in the penitentiary for the conspiracy convictions.
In conjunction with the proceedings the victims of the crimes charged filed victim impact statements. The victim's impact statement filed by Hardy County Farm Services, Inc., indicated that it had lost $800.00 or more in stolen merchandise as a result of the entering of its premises which occurred in June 1995. It also indicated that it had suffered a loss of $300,000.00 for the replacement of a feed mill, $21,982.54 for lost feed supplies, and around $31,714.40 for cleanup, which were the result of a fire which had occurred on its premises on May 22, 1995.
The victim's impact statement for the April 1995 burning of the Martin barn, submitted by Leonard Martin, indicated that Mr. Martin had lost $30,000.00 as a result of the fire.
In conjunction with the sentencing of the appellant the circuit court directed that he pay for the losses resulting from the two arsons. As previously indicated, the appellant had plead guilty to being an accessory after the fact to the arson of the Martin barn. The count relating to the arson of the Hardy County Farm Services property had been dropped.
Subsequent to the filing of this appeal, the circuit court on its own motion vacated that portion of its order directing the appellant to pay for the Hardy County Farm Services Inc., fire. The court, however, declined to vacate its prior order that the appellant pay $30,000.00 in restitution to Mr. Martin for the burning of Mr. Martin's barn.
As initially filed, the appellant challenged the court's order that he pay restitution to Mr. Martin for the burning of the Martin barn and to Hardy County Farm Services, Inc., for the burning of its premises. In view of the fact that the circuit court, following the filing of this appeal, did vacate the portion of the order directing restitution be made to Hardy County Farm Services, Inc., the appellant on appeal concedes that the sole issue remaining in this case is whether he can legally be required to pay $30,000.00 restitution to Mr. Martin for the burning of Mr. Martin's barn.
Legal authority for a circuit court to require a criminal defendant in West Virginia to make restitution to the victim of the crime is contained in W.Va.Code § 61-11A-4. A portion of that statute, W.Va.Code § 61-11A-4 (a) provides:
The court, when sentencing a defendant convicted of a felony or misdemeanor causing physical, psychological or economic injury or loss to a victim, shall order, in addition to or in lieu of any other penalty authorized by law, that the defendant make restitution to any victim of the offense, unless the court finds restitution to be wholly or partially impractical as set forth in this article. If the court does not order restitution, or orders only partial restitution, under this section, the court shall state on the record the reasons therefor.
In arguing that he should not be required to make restitution in the present case, other than the $846.39 restitution which he agreed to pay in conjunction with the conspiracy charges, the appellant in the present proceeding claims that being an accessory after the fact to second degree arson, had no impact on the victim and that the nature of the crime of being an accessory after the fact precludes a restitution award.
The appellant's position is seemingly that an accessory after the fact can never be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rebecca F.
...consequences to the defendant and any victims, and such other factors as the court may consider. Additionally, in State v. Whetzel, 200 W.Va. 45, 488 S.E.2d 45 (1997), this Court stated that the Victim Protection Act “predicates an award of restitution upon a defendant's conviction of a fel......
-
State v. Lucas
...a motion to that effect.APPELLANT'S COUNSEL: I'll discuss it with Mr. Lucas first.4 This Court recently stated in State v. Whetzel, 200 W.Va. 45, ----, 488 S.E.2d 45, 48 (1997), that the Act "enable[s] trial courts to require convicted criminals to pay all losses sustained by victims in the......
-
State v. Bagent
...insurance proceeds an insurer paid as result of the defendant's arson. Id . at 274, 496 S.E.2d at 224.Similarly, in State v. Whetzel , 200 W.Va. 45, 488 S.E.2d 45 (1997), this Court focused upon the purpose of the restitution statute's design, "predicat [ing] an award of restitution upon a ......
-
State v. Mathena
...to the legislative intent that "all that is possible" be done, an intent set forth in W.Va.Code § 61-11A-1(b).State v. Whetzel, 200 W.Va. 45, 48, 488 S.E.2d 45, 48 (1997). Further, "the burdens imposed in a criminal trial are distinct from those utilized in the determination of restitution ......