State of West Virginia v. James Crabtree
16-0791
| W. Va. | Oct 13, 2017Background
- James Crabtree, pro se, filed a Rule 35(a) motion seeking correction of an allegedly illegal recidivist life sentence imposed under West Virginia’s Habitual Criminal Statute.
- The recidivist information had been amended at trial to change a listed prior offense from "breaking and entering" to the lesser included offense "entering without breaking."
- In a prior appeal (State v. Crabtree), this Court upheld the life sentence, agreeing the amendment was not a material change and was permissible.
- Crabtree argued the amendment rendered his recidivist sentence void and asked the circuit court to revisit that issue under Rule 35(a); the circuit court denied the motion as precluded by the prior decision.
- Crabtree relied on Holcomb v. Ballard to argue that the procedural filing requirements for recidivist informations are jurisdictional and mandatory; the State argued the issue was already finally adjudicated.
- This Court affirmed the circuit court, holding the prior decision resolved the materiality question and the Rule 35(a) motion failed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amendment to the recidivist information was a material change that voids the recidivist sentence | Crabtree: amendment was material and thus rendered the recidivist sentence void | State: issue already decided in State v. Crabtree; amendment was immaterial (corrected error) | Court: Amendment was immaterial and the prior decision preclusively resolved the issue; Rule 35(a) motion denied |
| Whether Holcomb requires revisiting Crabtree because § 61-11-19 is jurisdictional and not subject to harmless error | Crabtree: Holcomb means procedural defects are jurisdictional and mandatory, so prior amendment is invalid | State: Holcomb does not disturb Crabtree because Crabtree resolved materiality on the merits; issue is precluded | Court: Holcomb does not undermine the prior final adjudication; Crabtree stands |
| Whether the circuit court erred in denying Rule 35(a) relief on other issues raised on appeal | Crabtree: raised additional collateral issues on appeal | State: those issues were not presented to the trial court and are not for appellate review | Court: Declined to address issues not decided by the circuit court; Rule 35(a) motion’s sole basis was the amended information |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Crabtree, 198 W. Va. 620, 482 S.E.2d 605 (1996) (held amendment changing listed prior offense to a lesser included offense was not a material change)
- State v. Cain, 178 W. Va. 353, 359 S.E.2d 581 (1987) (an amendment adding a felony is a material change that must be filed in the same term)
- Holcomb v. Ballard, 232 W. Va. 253, 752 S.E.2d 284 (2013) (procedural requirements of § 61-11-19 are mandatory and jurisdictional)
- State v. Head, 198 W. Va. 298, 480 S.E.2d 507 (1996) (standard of review for Rule 35 motions: abuse of discretion for decision, clearly erroneous for facts, de novo for legal questions)
- In Re Name Change of Jenna A.J., 234 W. Va. 271, 765 S.E.2d 160 (2014) (this Court’s definitive rulings are conclusive on parties and courts, including on subsequent appeals)