Background
J.S., proceeding without counsel, petitioned the Magistrate Court of Raleigh County for a personal safety order against G.V. under West Virginia Code § 53-8-4. J.S. alleged that G.V. had harassed him and made threats of bodily injury. On September 23, 2024, the magistrate granted a temporary personal safety order and scheduled a final hearing. G.V. is represented by John D. (Jody) Wooton Jr. Because the case concerns a personal safety order, the record is confidential under West Virginia Code § 53-8-2(a), and the court used initials under Rule 40(e) of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure to protect the parties’ identities.
By order dated November 7, 2024, the magistrate denied the petition and terminated the temporary order. The magistrate concluded that J.S. had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the alleged acts or offenses defined in West Virginia Code § 53-8-1 et seq., and that he was not a victim of sexual offenses, harassment, or repeated credible threats of bodily injury.
J.S. appealed to the Circuit Court of Raleigh County, which held a hearing on March 11, 2025. The circuit court affirmed the denial of the personal safety order and termination of the temporary order in its March 18, 2025, order. It found that any bona fide evidence was at least seven years old, that no new evidence had been presented, and that G.V. was not engaged in conduct warranting a protective order. J.S. then appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeals.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed. It first described a deferential, two-prong standard for reviewing challenges to the circuit court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. Quoting syllabus point 2, in part, of Walker v. West Virginia Ethics Commission, 201 W. Va. 108, 492 S.E.2d 167 (1997), the court stated that it reviews the final order and ultimate disposition for abuse of discretion, reviews underlying factual findings for clear error, and reviews questions of law de novo.
The court nevertheless declined to consider the issues J.S. raised because his brief did not comply with Rule 10(c)(7) of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure. That rule requires an argument identifying the points of fact and law, the applicable standard of review, and supporting authorities under headings corresponding to the assignments of error. It also requires specific record citations, including citations pinpointing when and how the issues were presented to the lower tribunal, and permits the appellate courts to disregard inadequately supported errors.
Although J.S.’s brief contained assignments of error and a section titled “Legal Basis for Reversal,” it did not cite the appendix record to show when and how those assignments were presented below. The assignments also lacked support from pertinent authority. Citing State v. LaRock, 196 W. Va. 294, 302, 470 S.E.2d 613, 621 (1996), the court explained that even liberally construed briefs do not require consideration of issues mentioned only in passing without pertinent authority. The court further invoked the presumption of regularity of court proceedings and the appellant’s burden to affirmatively demonstrate irregularity, quoting syllabus point 2, in part, of State v. J.S., 233 W. Va. 198, 757 S.E.2d 622 (2014). Because J.S. failed to establish error, the court affirmed the circuit court’s March 18, 2025, order.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order, leaving in place the denial of J.S.’s petition and the termination of his temporary personal safety order.
- The appellate disposition rested on J.S.’s failure to support his assignments of error with the required record citations and pertinent legal authority, not on a newly stated evaluation of the underlying allegations.
- The decision distinguishes de novo review of legal questions from abuse-of-discretion review of the ultimate disposition and clearly erroneous review of factual findings.
- Self-representation did not eliminate the briefing requirements, although the court recognized that briefs are liberally construed when determining the issues presented.
Why It Matters
The memorandum decision underscores that an appellant must do more than list alleged errors or provide a general argument for reversal. Rule 10(c)(7) requires specific appendix-record references showing preservation below, together with pertinent authority. Without that support, the court may decline to reach the assignments of error, and the presumption of regularity leaves the burden on the appellant to demonstrate error affirmatively.
The court issued the decision under Rule 21(c), finding no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error and concluding that oral argument was unnecessary. The decision was issued November 5, 2026, and concurred in by Chief Justice C. Haley Bunn and Justices Charles S. Trump IV, H. L. Kirkpatrick, and James W. Flanigan. Justice William R. Wooton was expressly listed as disqualified.