Edward A. Fields appeared before Judge Anita Harold Ashley in Calhoun Circuit Court on Tuesday, October 22, 2024 in case 24-F-16. Although on the docket for trial a plea agreement was reached between Prosecuting Attorney Michael Hicks and Defense Attorney Daniel F. Minardi.
When asked what evidence the State had to prove cause for a guilty plea, P.A. Hicks did not present evidence but relied on the State’s documentation. Mr. Fields plead guilty to the 2 count felony indictment on the charges of Grand Larceny and Entering a Building – not a dwelling. In West Virginia, grand larceny is defined in Code §61-3-13(a) as the illegal taking of property valued at $1,000 or more. It is a felony offense, and the punishment is a minimum of one year and a maximum of ten years in prison. However, a judge may reduce the sentence to a maximum of one year in jail and a fine of up to $2,500, in the charge of Entering a building not a dwelling, §61-3-12 If any person shall, at any time, break and enter, or shall enter without breaking, any office, shop, storehouse, warehouse, banking house, or any house or building, other than a dwelling house or outhouse adjoining thereto or occupied with intent to commit a felony or any larceny, he or she shall be deemed guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be confined in a state correctional facility not less than one nor more than 10 years.
When asked by Judge Ashley if it would bother him that he could no longer possess a gun as a convicted felon, Mr. Fields responded that it did not because he was already a felon. The matter was referred to Probation Officer Alicia Lawson for investigation and a sentencing date of December 5th, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. was set.
Prosecuting Attorney Hicks stated that there would be no sentencing recommendation from the State, and that the victim would attend sentencing.
In the matter of State v. Christopher Allen Johnson, 23F18, also set for trial, the case was continued. Attorney John J. Balenovich had other incarcerated defendants which had taken precedence for trial time. The case was continued for December 3, 9 a.m. for Trial. Judge Ashely advised the parties that plea agreements should be brought to the court at least ten days prior to the trial date.
The third trial on the docket was State of WV vs. Mark Christopher Donegan, 24F9 for which a plea agreement had been thought to have been reached. Donegan was willing to plea to one felony count of Wanton Endangerment and one misdemeanor count of Domestic Assault. The felony conviction of Wanton Endangerment, for which a person who wantonly performs any act with a firearm which creates a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another faces confinement in the penitentiary for a definite term of not less than one year nor more than five years, as well as the loss of the right to possess a firearm.
When Judge Ashley asked Mr. Donegan if the right to possess a firearm, he replied, “A little.” It is at this point that the plea agreement went awry.
When Prosecuting Attorney Hicks was asked what evidence the State had to prove cause for a guilty plea, P.A. Hicks did not present evidence but relied on the State’s documentation, but also advised that the victim approved.
As Judge Ashley proceeded with court procedures of advising the defendant of his rights regarding a guilty plea, the question arose as to whether or not the defendant believed this plea agreement was in his best interest. The defendant seemed to be frustrated stating “I have not seen the video.” A video supposedly taken by the victim, that Hicks stated he knew nothing about.
Donegan admitted that he had used a handgun in the vicinity of his stepson.
Prosecutor Hicks asked if he was intoxicated at the time. Donegan responded “No.”
Hicks then asked if he if he and his stepson were living in the same home at the time of the incident?
Attorney Minardi interjected, saying that he believes there is room for litigation in the Plea Agreement but he believed that the plea was in the best interest of his client.
Mr. Donegan continued to question the whereabouts of the video, but said he was willing to take the plea agreement to “prevent dragging them (the victims) through the mud.”
Attorney Minardi raised yet another issue when stating “There’s not much dispute on what happened, but the primary dispute is over why it happened and it will be a sentencing issue.”
P.A. Hicks stated that the only video the State has, had been turned over to the defense.
Mr. Minardi retorted that his stepson had “videoed the incident that showed his gun did not leave the holster, he couldn’t touch the trigger in the holster, it was loaded, if I had the intention of hurting him, it was to stop him from hurting me like he did the week before where I suffered a face jury.”
At this point Judge Ashley insisted that the Defense and State recess to give the attorney’s a chance to discuss the issues.
Mr. Donegan asked if he could talk to the Prosecutor too, with the response from P.A. Hicks, “You need to talk to your attorney.”
The Defendant questioned again about the video, to which Mr. Hicks responded that “he (the defendant) had every video.”
Attorney Minardi stated that he would then do a continuance and do a subpoena for the production of the video for the upcoming Pretrial. The matter was continued until November 20th, 2024 at 10:30 a.m.
In case 24-F-1 State v. Ryan Andrew Snider, the defendant appeared with his attorney Daniel Minardi, before Judge Ashley for a hearing on the Acceptance or Rejection of Deferred Adjudication.
A Hi-lo plea agreement had been reached between the State and defense for a standard guilty plea of cultivation of marijuana a felony, and Possession of marijuana a misdemeanor. A one year sentence would be deferred for the completion of probation. Once the year is completed without offense Mr. Snider’s felony case would be dismissed and the misdemeanor offense would stand alone.
Judge Ashley questioned the Prosecutor if Drug Court was aa condition of the Hi-Lo agreement. Both the State and Defense agreed that it had not been apart of the agreement because the defendant had been clean for greater than one year. During his pre-sentence time he had been screened and found clean.
When Judge Ashley asked Mr. Snider if he failed to comply with the one year probationary period and was found guilty of a felony, would the fact he could not possess a firearm bother him. Mr. Snider responded that it wouldn’t be an issue, because he would pass the probationary period without incident.
Ryan Snider entered guilty pleas for Manufacturing a controlled substance – marijuana (a felony) and Possession of controlled substance – marijuana, (a misdemeanor) With the agreement of hi-lo.
Prosecuting Attorney Hicks was asked what evidence the State had to prove cause for a guilty plea, P.A. Hicks did not present evidence but relied on the State’s documentation.
Judge Ashley asked the defendant to state what his crime was to which Mr. Snider responded, “I grew marijuana.” He further quoted Proverbs 28:13, “He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.”
The agreement was accepted by Judge Ashley and the case will be continued for one year.
It is incredibly frustrating to watch the safety of this community bargained away case by case. Every trial day results in no trials. There are two ways to bargain a case away to avoid a trial: Plea bargains and Sentence bargains. This report shows both. In the burglary/theft case the prosecutor agreed to remain silent at sentencing. Why? It is significantly more difficult for a defense attorney to ask the Judge to be lenient when the prosecutor is asking for a particular sentence. Advocating for the peaceful citizens is part of the job description. Offering to remain silent is sentence bargaining and gives the defense an advantage they would not otherwise have. The wanton endangerment attempted plea is plea bargaining, plain and simple. What the report doesn’t state is that the defendant is charged with 3 counts of wanton endangerment and 3 counts of domestic assault. On the day of trial, attempt to plea it down by reducing 4 counts to 2 and avoid a trial. The only legitimate continuance was the defense attorney had to be in another court. Oh, and the one plea that did happen was the “telephone call after hours” case resulting in sentence bargaining. If the actions of law enforcement are regularly undercut by the judicial system the safety of the community will be at risk. It is inevitable. Read this article again and ask yourself “Why?”. If you are concerned about feeling safe for you and your family then understand how important a strong prosecutor is to that safety. When you understand, explain it to someone else who has not paid attention to what it means and let them learn before they or someone they know becomes a victim. It really is that important.