State of West Virginia v. Rodney Crawford, 20-0170

Background

Crawford pled guilty in 2015 to one count of embezzlement; sentence of 1–10 years was suspended and he was placed on 60 months supervised probation with restitution ordered.
While on probation he was arrested in 2017 on multiple forgery/false-pretense charges and in October 2018 pled guilty to one misdemeanor count of fraudulent schemes; he served a short jail term and was released March 30, 2019, then returned to probation.
Revocation notices were filed (first in May 2017, another in October 2019) alleging the 2017 charges/2018 conviction, drug use, failure to report, and nonpayment of restitution; bench warrant issued after positive drug test in November 2019.
At a January 13, 2020 combined adjudicatory/dispositional hearing Crawford admitted the 2018 conviction, drug use, and failing to pay restitution; he later sought rehabilitation instead of incarceration.
The circuit court (Feb. 5, 2020) found the 2018 conviction independently justified revocation, determined the delay in pursuing revocation after release was not shown to have prejudiced Crawford, declined to revoke based solely on nonwillful failure to pay restitution, revoked probation under WV Code § 62-12-10(a)(1), and ordered imposition of the suspended 1–10 year sentence (dispositional order entered Feb. 24, 2020).
On appeal Crawford argued Rule 32.1/due-process violations from delay and that the State waived revocation by lack of due diligence; the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed but declined to reach the merits because Crawford’s appellate brief failed to comply with briefing rules (no record citations), and therefore affirmed the circuit court’s orders.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Crawford)	Held
Whether delay and failure to hold a prompt preliminary hearing under Rule 32.1 deprived Crawford of due process	State: Delay was not prejudicial; revocation may proceed based on new conviction; no requirement to await disposition of new charges	Crawford: The State’s delay and failure to promptly pursue revocation (and failure to hold hearings) violated due process and waived the right to revoke	Appellate court declined to address merits due to briefing deficiencies; affirmed circuit court’s revocation (trial court had found no prejudice and revoked)
Whether the State waived its right to revoke probation by lack of due diligence after Crawford’s subsequent conviction	State: Did not waive; conviction justifies revocation and delay did not prejudice Crawford	Crawford: State’s inaction after his release constituted lack of diligence and waived revocation on those grounds	Appellate court declined to consider on the merits because of appellant’s noncompliant brief; underlying trial-court ruling found no waiver and revoked probation

Key Cases Cited

State v. Inscore, 219 W. Va. 443, 634 S.E.2d 389 (W. Va. 2006) (discusses timeliness and prejudice in probation-revocation contexts)
Mangus v. McCarty, 188 W. Va. 563, 425 S.E.2d 239 (W. Va. 1992) (State’s lack of due diligence can waive a probation violation in certain circumstances)
State v. Halcomb, 178 W. Va. 455, 360 S.E.2d 232 (W. Va. 1987) (court discretion to revoke probation under WV Code § 62-12-10(a)(1) for new criminal convictions)
State v. Duke, 200 W. Va. 356, 489 S.E.2d 738 (W. Va. 1997) (standard of review for probation-revocation decisions)