State of West Virginia v. Jeffrey Eisenbeiss, 16-0253

Jeffrey Eisenbeiss was sentenced (Sept. 23, 2014) to concurrent six‑month terms for misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person; incarceration was suspended and he was placed on 18 months' probation.
Probation rules (signed/initialed by Eisenbeiss) required monthly in‑person reporting and written monthly reports; paragraph 24 specified monthly written and in‑person reporting.
The State filed a petition to revoke probation (Oct. 27, 2015) alleging Eisenbeiss often completed the written report and left without meeting the probation officer and missed contact in July–September 2015.
At the revocation hearing (Dec. 4, 2015) the probation officer testified that Eisenbeiss was informed of monthly in‑person reporting, that the requirement was not modified, and that he could not recall ever telling Eisenbeiss he could report every other month; Eisenbeiss presented no witnesses.
The circuit court found by clear and convincing evidence that Eisenbeiss violated probation, sentenced him to 30 days in jail, and extended probation by 12 months; the Rule 35(b) motion to reduce sentence was denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence proved violation of monthly in‑person reporting	State: Rules signed by Eisenbeiss and officer testimony show monthly in‑person meetings were required and not modified	Eisenbeiss: Officer lacked recollection of dates and may have orally allowed bi‑monthly reporting; evidence insufficient	Court: Affirmed—clear and convincing evidence supported violation; court may credit officer testimony
Whether denial of access to complete probation file violated due process	State: No violation; file access not necessary here	Eisenbeiss: Needed file to impeach officer’s memory and cross‑examine regarding alleged oral modification	Court: Denial of file access not a due process violation because petitioner did not show how file would prove an oral modification
Credibility determination—whether appellate court should reweigh witness credibility	State: Trial court credibility findings entitled to deference	Eisenbeiss: Officer lied about never permitting bi‑monthly reporting	Court: Appellate court defers to trial court’s credibility findings and declines to disturb them
Propriety of sanction (30 days jail + 12‑month extension)	State: Sanction within statutory bounds and appropriate for repeated noncompliance	Eisenbeiss: Extension undue; sought Rule 35 relief (denied)	Court: Sanction and extension were within discretion and statute; affirmed

State v. Inscore, 219 W.Va. 443 (2006) (standard of review for probation revocation matters)
State v. Duke, 200 W.Va. 356 (1997) (three‑pronged review: abuse of discretion, clearly erroneous, de novo)
State ex rel. Jones v. Trent, 200 W.Va. 538 (1997) (probationer’s right to cross‑examine witnesses at revocation hearings)
Sigman v. Whyte, 165 W.Va. 356 (1980) (standard for proof in probation revocation)
State v. Guthrie, 194 W.Va. 657 (1995) (appellate courts should not reweigh credibility of witnesses)
State v. Ketchum, 169 W.Va. 9 (1981) (discussion of proof standard in probation revocation)
Louk v. Haynes, 159 W.Va. 482 (1976) (probationer’s procedural rights at revocation proceedings)