State of West Virginia v. Jessie Suttle, 20-0975

Jessie Lee Suttle was convicted in 2013 of two counts of second-degree murder and sentenced to concurrent 35-year terms.
In November 2020 Suttle (pro se) moved in the Raleigh County circuit court to suspend "booking" or jail processing fees until his release and ability to work, arguing the statutory basis for the fees had been repealed.
The circuit court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, finding West Virginia Code § 15A-5-8 (enacted 2018) authorizes a $30 jail processing fee and a deduction mechanism from inmate trust accounts.
Suttle appealed, raising three principal claims: (1) retroactive application of § 15A-5-8 violates the ex post facto clauses, (2) the court failed to consider his ability to pay, and (3) the denial lacked sufficient findings and an evidentiary hearing.
The Supreme Court of Appeals reviewed the record de novo for statutory interpretation but found Suttle’s brief and appendix deficient: he failed to provide the motion filed below, documentation of fee assessments or deductions, or legal authority supporting his claims.
Because Suttle did not adequately develop or support his claims in the record or briefing, the Court affirmed the circuit court’s November 10, 2020 order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Suttle)	Held
Whether § 15A-5-8 may be applied to Suttle or violates the ex post facto clauses	§ 15A-5-8 authorizes a $30 processing fee and a deduction mechanism from trust accounts	Retroactive application of § 15A-5-8 to Suttle (convicted in 2013) violates state and federal ex post facto protections; § 62-13-6a was repealed	Court did not reach merits: Suttle failed to adequately brief or provide evidence of retroactive application or resulting deductions; claim not preserved; affirmed
Whether the circuit court erred by not considering Suttle’s ability to pay	No record evidence Suttle raised or proved inability to pay	Court failed to consider his inability to pay the imposed fees	Suttle provided no documentation he alerted the court or proved inability to pay; claim not preserved; affirmed
Whether the denial order lacked sufficient findings and required an evidentiary hearing	The record does not show a need for a hearing; appellant failed to include the underlying motion or supporting evidence	The order lacked factual findings and the court should have held a hearing	Court found the appendix and brief inadequate (no motion, no records of deductions); absent a developed record, no reversible error; affirmed

Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W. Va. 138, 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995) (standard of review for questions of law is de novo)
Blair v. Maynard, 174 W. Va. 247, 324 S.E.2d 391 (1984) (pro se briefs should be liberally construed)
State v. Kaufman, 227 W. Va. 537, 711 S.E.2d 607 (2011) (appellate courts are not required to search briefs for undeveloped arguments)
U.S. v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955 (7th Cir. 1991) (court need not hunt for arguments buried in briefs)