Clarifying “Absconded Supervision” in Probation Revocation: Standards for Reporting and Treatment Compliance

Introduction

In State of West Virginia v. Douglas G. Hill, Jr., No. 23-368 (W. Va. May 28, 2025), the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia addressed the threshold for revoking supervised probation on the ground that a probationer “absconded supervision.” The petitioner, Douglas G. Hill, Jr., entered a binding plea agreement on charges of malicious wounding, prohibited person in possession of a firearm, and domestic battery. His aggregate prison sentence was suspended in favor of twenty-four months’ supervised probation, subject to monthly reporting and mandatory substance-abuse treatment. After testing presumptively positive for controlled substances and leaving his treatment facility prematurely, Hill reported a transfer to a sober-living facility but failed to provide enrollment verification or maintain weekly contact. The State moved to revoke, alleging absconding, new drug use, and failure to complete treatment. The circuit court revoked probation, reinstated the underlying sentence, and the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed. The key issue on appeal was whether Hill’s conduct amounted to “absconded supervision” under West Virginia Code § 62-12-10.

Summary of the Judgment

On May 22, 2023, the Raleigh County Circuit Court revoked Hill’s supervised probation, concluding that he had “absconded supervision” by misrepresenting his location and ceasing all required contact with his probation officer. The court relied on Hill’s stipulation to multiple positive drug screens and his failure to provide proof of enrollment at a second treatment facility, as well as his abrupt discontinuation of weekly telephone reports. Under § 62-12-10(1)(A), absconding supervision permits revocation and reinstatement of the original sentence. Hill argued on appeal that his reporting obligations were unclear, that he did not “abscond” because he had in fact relocated to the sober-living facility, and that at most he was entitled to a sixty-day sanction under § 62-12-10(2). Applying a three-pronged standard of review (abuse of discretion for the revocation decision, clearly erroneous for factual findings, and de novo for legal questions), the Supreme Court of Appeals held that the preponderance of the evidence supported the finding of absconding and affirmed the revocation and reinstated sentence.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

State v. Duke, 200 W. Va. 356, 489 S.E.2d 738 (1997): Established the standard of review for probation-revocation proceedings—abuse of discretion for the court’s decision, clearly erroneous for factual findings, and de novo for questions of law.
West Virginia Rule of Appellate Procedure 21: Permits memorandum decisions without oral argument where no substantial question of law or prejudicial error exists.
W. Va. Code § 62-12-10: Governs probation-revocation triggers. Subsection (1)(A) allows revocation for absconding supervision; subsection (2) prescribes up to sixty days’ confinement for less serious first-time violations.

Legal Reasoning

The court first confirmed that Hill knowingly entered into probation with clear reporting requirements: monthly in person and weekly by phone once in treatment, plus proof of enrollment upon transfer. After confirming Hill’s positive drug tests and his admission to Chelyan facility, the probation officer testified that Hill reported weekly until he left Chelyan on March 14, 2023, without authorization. Hill then notified the officer he was at Shirley Temple Sober Living on March 22, but never produced written verification and ceased all further contact. The court viewed this conduct as affirmative avoidance of supervision—i.e., absconding.

Hill’s attempt to relabel his failure to communicate as a mere “technical violation” failed because the Legislature left “absconded supervision” undefined, and courts must construe it in light of the statutory purpose—to protect public safety and ensure compliance. By a preponderance of the evidence, the State showed that Hill intentionally avoided oversight in both location verification and required reporting. Under § 62-12-10(1)(A), that finding justified revocation and imposition of the original sentence, rather than the lesser sixty-day sanction in § 62-12-10(2), which applies only where absconding is not established.

Impact

This decision clarifies for probationers and trial courts that:

Failure to maintain any contact combined with misrepresentation of location can constitute “absconded supervision.”
Courts should require probation officers to set out reporting obligations in writing to avoid disputes over oral instructions.
Probationers must provide timely documentation of treatment enrollment to remain within the supervisory framework.

Future revocation proceedings will likely reference this case when assessing whether a probationer’s conduct exceeds a minor technical lapse and enters the realm of intentional avoidance. Probation departments may revise contracts to include more detailed weekly reporting and verification procedures.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Absconded Supervision: When a probationer intentionally avoids contact with supervising authorities or misleads them about the probationer’s whereabouts, thereby undermining the court’s power to monitor compliance.
Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard in probation-revocation hearings requiring the State to show it is more likely than not that a violation occurred.
Abuse of Discretion: A deferential appellate standard under which a trial court’s probation-revocation decision will be overturned only if it was arbitrary or unreasonable.
Clearly Erroneous: An appellate review standard for factual findings, meaning that a finding will stand unless the appellate court is firmly convinced it is mistaken.
De Novo Review: An appellate standard for legal questions, where the appellate court gives no deference to the trial court’s legal conclusions.

Conclusion

State v. Hill establishes an important precedent on what constitutes “absconded supervision” in West Virginia probation law. The decision underscores that a probationer’s failure to comply with clear reporting and treatment directives—especially misrepresenting whereabouts and ceasing all contact—amounts to intentional avoidance, justifying full revocation of probation and reinstatement of the original sentence. Trial courts and probation officers should take heed by drafting explicit, written supervision plans and by documenting all communications. For probationers, the ruling serves as a warning that probation terms must be honored not only in spirit but also in strict adherence to reporting and verification requirements.