State of West Virginia v. Nicholas Varlas

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that, under State v. Eden and the West Virginia Constitution, a defendant who successfully appeals a conviction may not receive a harsher penalty upon reconviction. For purposes of this rule, probation must be considered part of the total criminal penalty, and the court overruled State v. Workman to the extent it conflicted with that holding. The court vacated the Circuit Court of Brooke County’s 2018 sentencing order and remanded for resentencing.

Holdings

1. State v. Eden remains valid precedent in West Virginia because it is grounded in the greater due process protections afforded by the West Virginia Constitution, including protection of a defendant's right to appeal.
2. When a defendant successfully appeals a conviction for which probation was granted, Eden prohibits the circuit court from imposing a longer term of probation or withholding probation entirely upon reconviction for the same crime or crimes.
3. The circuit court imposed a harsher penalty in violation of Eden by failing to suspend Varlas's ten-to-twenty-five-year incarceration sentence in favor of the five years of probation granted in the original sentencing order.

Questions Presented

1. Whether State v. Eden remains valid under the West Virginia Constitution notwithstanding subsequent United States Supreme Court decisions concerning increased punishment after retrial.
2. Whether, for purposes of the Eden prohibition on increased penalties after a successful appeal, probation must be treated as part of the defendant's penalty.
3. Whether the circuit court imposed an impermissibly harsher penalty by withholding probation upon Varlas's reconviction and resentencing.

Disposition

vacated