Dismissal of a charge against Terry Alan Mason of failing to properly register as a sex offender by Circuit Judge Ronald E. Wilson, has been overturned by the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.
The case, which started in 1994 in Brooke County Circuit Court, saw Mason charged by an information with sexual abuse of a 13-year-old girl by a parent, guardian or custodian.
The Supreme Court’s decision was given June 13.
Mason pleaded guilty to the charge, and in exchange for his plea, judge Wilson suspended his sentence and placed him on probation.
Under the Sex Offender Registration Act in effect at that time, Wilson required Mason to register as a sex offender for 10 years after his conviction.
In 1999, the West Virginia Legislature changed the Sex Offender Registration Act to require those convicted of sexual abuse by a parent, guardian or custodian to require them to register as sex offenders for their lifetimes.
In its memorandum decision, the Supreme Court said that the change in the state’s sex offender law requiring the longer registration does not amount to additional punishment for defendants convicted before the change was made.
Following his conviction, Mason registered as a sex offender through 2022.
In that year, he was charged by criminal information with failing to provide notice of registration changes.
The state and Mason entered into a plea agreement whereby Mason would plead guilty to that charge if the circuit court would suspend his sentence and impose two years of probation.
From a hearing on that plea agreement on Dec. 16, 2022, judge Wilson entered an order on Jan 6, 2023, refusing to accept the plea agreement and dismissed the charge.
He found that Mason was only required to register as a sex offender for a period of 10 years and that period of time had since passed.
The state filed a motion asking judge Wilson to reconsider the dismissal of the charge and argued that Mason was then required to register as a sex offender for life.
Wilson denied that motion saying, “The state has presented this court with no new information that would change the court’s decision. The court has reviewed the case file and finds that Mason was only required to register as a sexual offender for a 10-year period, and that time has since passed. The state’s legal argument, based upon a change in the registration statute, is without merit based upon the facts in this case.”
On Feb. 22, 2023, the state filed its petition with the Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition seeking to block dismissal of the case by circuit judge Wilson.
First, the state argued that it does to have any other adequate means of relief, sch as direct appeal, to obtain reinstatement of the failure to register charge against Mason, and the Supreme Court agreed.
Second, the state argued that without a writ or prohibition to block Wilson’s dismissal of the charge the state’s case would be damaged or prejudiced in a way that is not correctable on appeal, having been deprived of a valid conviction.
The Supreme Court noted that Mason had agreed to plead guilty and that an appeal is unavailable.
Third, the state contended that judge Wilson’s dismissal of the charge was clearly erroneous as a matter of law.
“We agree,” the court said. “In finding otherwise, the circuit court committed clear legal error that is plainly in contravention of the Sex Offender Registration Act.
“Further, we determine that the circuit court’s action was so flagrant that the state was deprived of its right to prosecute the case,” the Supreme Court said.
“Under the specific facts of this case, we find that a writ of prohibition would not offend either the double jeopardy clause of Mason’s right to a speedy trial, and we find that the petition was promptly presented this this court for consideration.”
Signing the decision which blocks judge Wilson’s order dismissing the failure to register charge were Chief Justice Elizabeth D. Walker and Justices Tim Armstead and C. Haley Bunn.
Justices John A. Hutchinson and William R. Wooten, dissented saying, “We would have set this case for oral argument to thoroughly address the error alleged in this appeal. Having reviewed the parties’ briefs and the issues raised therein, we believe a formal opinion of this court was warranted, not a memorandum decision.”
The Supreme Court had considered the case and issued a memorandum decision, which is often does in cases where it believes no new or substantial questions of law are involved and decides that oral arguments by the parties are unnecessary.