State of West Virginia v. William B. Pierce Jr., 16-1034

Pierce was convicted of grand larceny (Jan. 5, 2015), received a 1–10 year indeterminate sentence suspended for five years of probation.
While on probation he was cited/convicted for possession of marijuana and failed to pay the related fine and costs.
Drug screens on May 27 and June 9, 2016, were positive for oxymorphone (prescription contested) and marijuana, respectively.
He admitted to petit larceny (arrest on July 11, 2016) and admitted the marijuana citation; he denied other alleged violations.
The probation officer petitioned to revoke; after a September 26, 2016 hearing the circuit court revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence, memorialized in an October 4, 2016 order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court abused discretion by revoking probation without considering alternatives under W.Va. Code § 62-12-10(c)	Pierce: court should have considered alternatives given nonviolent offenses and admissions	State: court properly exercised discretion based on violations and lack of amenability to supervision	No abuse of discretion; revocation affirmed
Whether failure to pay restitution was improperly considered as a basis for revocation	Pierce: court referenced unpaid restitution, arguing it impermissibly influenced revocation	State: primary grounds were new criminal conduct and drug use, not restitution	Court’s written order shows revocation based on petit larceny and marijuana use; no reversible error
Standard of review for probation revocation	Pierce: (implicit) errors of fact/law require reversal	State: factual findings reviewed for clear error; revocation reviewed for abuse of discretion	Court applied correct standards and found no error
Whether probation is a right such that revocation was inappropriate here	Pierce: probation’s rehabilitative purpose favors alternatives	State: probation is grace; petitioner not amenable to supervision	Court reaffirmed probation is a privilege and revoked based on admitted/new offenses

State v. Duke, 200 W.Va. 356, 489 S.E.2d 738 (W. Va. 1997) (three-pronged standard of review for revocation: abuse of discretion for revocation decision, clearly erroneous for facts, de novo for legal questions)
State v. Rose, 156 W.Va. 342, 192 S.E.2d 884 (W. Va. 1972) (probation is a matter of grace, not a right)
Armstead v. Dale, 170 W.Va. 319, 249 S.E.2d 122 (W. Va. 1978) (probation may not be revoked for failure to pay restitution unless contumacious failure)
Legg v. Felinton, 219 W.Va. 478, 637 S.E.2d 576 (W. Va. 2006) (court speaks through its orders; written order controls findings)