Presumption of Municipal Territorial Jurisdiction and the Appellant’s Burden on De Novo Appeals:
Commentary on State of West Virginia & Municipality of Milton v. Gravely

I. Introduction

This commentary analyzes the memorandum decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia in State of West Virginia and Municipality of Milton v. Richard Gravely, No. 24-90 (Nov. 25, 2025). The case arose from a simple traffic citation: a Milton police officer stopped Richard Gravely on Interstate 64 and cited him for driving with an expired registration in violation of a Milton municipal traffic ordinance (§ 351.04).

What turned this routine stop into an appellate case was Gravely’s challenge to the territorial jurisdiction of the Milton officer. Gravely argued that the stop occurred outside the corporate limits of the Municipality of Milton; therefore, he claimed the officer—and by extension, the municipal court—had no jurisdiction over him. After being convicted in Milton Municipal Court, he appealed to the Circuit Court of Cabell County, moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and then, after losing that motion, refused to participate in the trial de novo and walked out of the courtroom. The circuit court denied his motion and dismissed his appeal for failure to prosecute.

The Supreme Court, reviewing the matter, affirmed. The decision does not announce new syllabus points but meaningfully applies and reinforces several important doctrines:

The de novo standard of review for jurisdictional questions;
The presumption of regularity in court proceedings, including jurisdictional findings;
The appellant’s burden to designate a proper record and to affirmatively demonstrate error;
The consequences of non-compliance with appellate briefing rules (Rule 10); and
The authority of a circuit court to dismiss an appeal for failure to prosecute when the appellant abandons a de novo proceeding.

Collectively, these points yield a practical rule that can be stated as follows:

When a municipality offers some evidence that a traffic stop on a highway falls within its corporate limits, and the defendant supplies no contrary evidence in the circuit court or on appeal, the West Virginia Supreme Court will presume that the municipal court had territorial jurisdiction, and the appellant will not prevail on a bare, unsupported jurisdictional challenge. Moreover, a defendant who abandons a de novo appeal by refusing to participate risks dismissal of the appeal for failure to prosecute.

II. Factual and Procedural Background

A. The Traffic Stop and Municipal Conviction

Date of stop: August 6, 2023.
Officer: Police officer employed by the Municipality of Milton.
Location: Interstate 64 (I-64), within Cabell County.
Citation: Expired motor vehicle registration, in violation of Milton municipal traffic ordinance § 351.04.

The Milton officer conducted a traffic stop on I-64 and issued Gravely a citation. Milton Municipal Court later held proceedings and convicted Gravely of the ordinance violation. The conviction order itself was not included in the appendix record provided to the Supreme Court, a fact that later became legally significant.

B. Appeal to Circuit Court and Motion to Dismiss

Gravely appealed his municipal conviction to the Circuit Court of Cabell County. Under West Virginia law, appeals from municipal court convictions to circuit court are tried de novo, i.e., as fresh trials. See W. Va. Code § 8-34-1(e).

Before trial, Gravely filed a “Motion to Dismiss for City of Milton Lack of Jurisdiction in this Instant Matter.” His core assertion: at the time of the stop on I-64, he was physically located outside Milton’s municipal corporate limits, so the officer lacked territorial jurisdiction to enforce a municipal ordinance.

On January 30, 2024, the circuit court:

Heard and denied Gravely’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, finding he did not establish that he was outside the corporate limits; and
Attempted to proceed immediately with a trial de novo.

Before the de novo trial actually began, Gravely informed the court that he would not participate and left the courtroom. He introduced no evidence in support of his jurisdictional claim and indicated that he had no evidence to present, even when asked about potential expert testimony.

C. Circuit Court’s Order

On February 5, 2024, the circuit court entered an order titled “Order Denying Motion to Dismiss and Denying Appeal for Failure to Prosecute,” which:

Reaffirmed the denial of Gravely’s motion to dismiss; and
Dismissed his appeal from municipal court for failure to prosecute, based on his refusal to participate in the de novo trial.

Gravely then appealed this order to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, proceeding pro se (without counsel).

III. Summary of the Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court issued a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court’s order and rejected Gravely’s sole assignment of error. The Court’s essential conclusions were:

Standard of review: Jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de novo (fresh, with no deference to the lower court’s conclusion).
Record limitations: The Court’s review was confined to a limited appendix record designated by the parties. Facts not in that record are treated as non-existent for appellate purposes.
Presumption of regularity and jurisdiction: In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Court presumed that the municipal and circuit courts acted regularly and had jurisdiction.
Appellant’s burden: Gravely, as appellant, had the burden to affirmatively show error in the proceedings below. He failed to provide evidence or record citations establishing that the stop occurred outside Milton’s municipal boundaries or that the municipal court lacked jurisdiction.
Municipality’s evidence: The record indicated Milton had provided documentation to the circuit court (and to Gravely) that the location of the stop on I-64 lay within its corporate limits. Gravely produced no evidence in response.
Failure to prosecute: The circuit court attempted to conduct a trial de novo, but Gravely refused to participate and left the courtroom. The Supreme Court held that the circuit court did not err in dismissing his appeal for failure to prosecute.
Rule 10 deficiencies: Gravely’s brief failed to comply with the content and citation requirements of Rule 10(c)(7) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, offering only a two-page argument with no record citations and limited legal support. The Court underscored that it is not the appellant’s advocate and will not construct arguments on a party’s behalf.

Finding no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error, the Court concluded that oral argument was unnecessary and resolved the appeal by memorandum decision under Rule 21(c).

IV. Detailed Analysis

A. Precedents and Authorities Cited

1. Standard of Review for Legal and Jurisdictional Questions

The Court began by reasserting the familiar principle that issues of law are reviewed de novo:

Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W. Va. 138, 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995)
Syllabus point 1: where the issue on appeal involves a question of law or statutory interpretation, the standard of review is de novo.
State ex rel. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 239 W. Va. 338, 801 S.E.2d 216 (2017)
Jurisdictional issues are questions of law and are therefore reviewed de novo.

In this case, the central question—whether Milton had territorial jurisdiction over the location of the stop—was framed as a jurisdictional question, so the Supreme Court applied fresh legal review without deference to the circuit court’s legal conclusions. However, that de novo standard operates within the confines of the record before the Court, which becomes critical given the limited appendix.

2. Designation of the Record and Its Consequences

Because only a limited record was provided, the Court emphasized long-standing holdings about the appellant’s responsibility to designate a proper record:

State v. Honaker, 193 W. Va. 51, 454 S.E.2d 96 (1994)
The burden of designating an adequate record lies with the parties. Appellate review is limited to issues and materials contained in the designated record.
Hairston v. West Virginia Dep’t of Health & Human Resources Bd. of Review, No. 20-0326, 2021 WL 982643 (W. Va. Mar. 16, 2021) (mem. dec.)
Quoted for the proposition that the Court takes as “non-existing all facts that do not appear in the appendix record.”
State v. Delorenzo, 247 W. Va. 707, 885 S.E.2d 645 (2022)
Reiterated Honaker and Hairston, underscoring that failure to include necessary material in the record drastically limits what the Court can review.

Applied here, these authorities meant that any factual assertions by Gravely about the location of the stop were legally irrelevant if not supported by the appendix record. The missing municipal conviction order, for example, could not be considered; its absence did not help Gravely—it simply left the Court to assume regularity.

3. Presumption of Regularity and Burden to Show Irregularity

The Court then invoked a foundational doctrine: the presumption that court proceedings are regular and valid unless the contrary is affirmatively shown:

State ex rel. Smith v. Boles, 150 W. Va. 1, 146 S.E.2d 585 (1965) (syllabus point 1)
There is a presumption of regularity in court proceedings; the burden rests on the party alleging irregularity to affirmatively show it. Courts will presume that a court of record performed its duty in every respect as required by law, except where fundamental constitutional rights (like the right to counsel) are at issue.

Here, the Court applied Boles both to the municipal proceedings and to the circuit court’s handling of the jurisdictional question. Because Gravely produced no record evidence of jurisdictional irregularity, the Court presumed that jurisdiction was properly established and exercised.

4. Appellant’s Burden to Show Error; Error Will Not Be Presumed

The Court reaffirmed a line of cases placing the burden squarely on appellants to demonstrate error:

Perdue v. Coiner, 156 W. Va. 467, 194 S.E.2d 657 (1973) (syllabus point 2)
On appeal, the appellant bears the burden of showing that error occurred below. All presumptions favor the correctness of the judgment; error will not be presumed and must affirmatively appear in the record.
Morgan v. Price, 151 W. Va. 158, 150 S.E.2d 897 (1966) (syllabus point 5)
An appellant must carry the burden of showing error in the judgment complained of; the Court will not reverse absent error appearing affirmatively from the record.
Shrewsbury v. Miller, 10 W. Va. 115 (1877) (syllabus point 2)
An appellate court will not reverse a judgment of an inferior court unless error affirmatively appears on the face of the record.

Collectively, these cases set the bar: it is not enough to assert that a lower court erred; one must show, by reference to the record, why and how error occurred. Gravely, offering no record citations and no evidence contradicting Milton’s territorial claim, failed to meet that burden.

5. Compliance with Appellate Briefing Rules (Rule 10)

The Court also addressed the quality of Gravely’s brief. Rule 10(c)(7) of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure requires:

A clearly expressed argument;
Identification of the applicable standard of review;
Legal authorities supporting the argument; and
Specific citations to the record showing where and how issues were raised below.

Gravely’s brief was:

Only two pages long;
Contained one question for review;
Offered limited argument; and
Contained no citations to the record.

The Court cited:

Metro Tristate, Inc. v. Public Service Commission of West Virginia, 245 W. Va. 495, 859 S.E.2d 438 (2021)
Warning that parties who fail to follow appellate rules produce disjointed or difficult-to-understand briefs, and should not expect the Court to “find or make their arguments for them.”

Relying on Metro Tristate and Rule 10, the Court signaled that it may disregard inadequately supported errors. This was an important backdrop to its decision to summarily reject Gravely’s single, unsupported assignment of error.

6. De Novo Appeals from Municipal Courts

The Court cited:

W. Va. Code § 8-34-1(e)
Providing for appeals from municipal court to circuit court, with the appeal being tried de novo.

The statute underpins the circuit court’s authority to conduct a full new trial, taking evidence and deciding the case without being bound by the municipal court’s factual findings. It also supports the circuit court’s role as a trial court in this context—meaning that an appellant who refuses to participate is effectively abandoning his appeal.

B. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Territorial Jurisdiction and the Burden of Proof

Gravely’s sole argument on appeal was that respondents “failed to prove that he was stopped within the municipal corporate limits” of Milton. The Court rejected this for several interlocking reasons:

The record showed some proof by Milton.
The Court noted that the respondents (State and Milton) provided “evidence that the location of the traffic stop on Interstate 64 is within the municipal corporate limits of Milton,” including documentation shared both with the petitioner and the circuit court.
The petitioner offered no contrary evidence.
When asked if he intended to introduce any evidence—such as testimony from an expert—Gravely admitted he had none. He did not present maps, surveys, municipal boundary documents, or any witness testimony. Nor did he designate such material in the appendix record.
Burden on the movant and appellant.
As the party moving to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction in circuit court, Gravely carried the initial burden of producing some competent evidence that the stop occurred outside the corporate limits. As the appellant, he then bore the burden of showing error in the circuit court’s denial of his motion, with that error needing to affirmatively appear in the record.
Presumption of regularity.
Because Gravely could point to no irregularity in how the municipal court determined jurisdiction, and no evidence showed that the stop lay outside Milton’s jurisdiction, the presumption of regularity under Boles applied. The Court thus presumed that jurisdiction was properly vested in the municipal court and lawfully exercised.
No factual predicate in the record.
Under Honaker, Hairston, and Delorenzo, the Court treated any “facts” about being outside the corporate limits—if raised only in briefs but unsupported by the appendix—as non-existent.

In short, while “territorial jurisdiction” is a genuinely legal and factual issue, Gravely never put forward any admissible or record-supported fact on his side of the scale. The municipality put forward some documentation; Gravely put forward none. Given that imbalance, the circuit court reasonably denied the motion to dismiss, and the Supreme Court—after de novo review of the legal standard but deferential treatment of the factual record—saw no error to correct.

2. Presumption of Correctness of Judgments and the Role of the Record

The Court’s analysis heavily relied on the principle that:

On appeal, all presumptions are in favor of the correctness of the proceedings and judgment below; error is never assumed and must be shown affirmatively in the record.

This is especially relevant in a case involving:

A missing municipal conviction order;
No transcript or documentary evidence in the appendix supporting the appellant’s jurisdictional position; and
A minimal, rule-deficient appellate brief.

These circumstances triggered the combined effect of:

Boles (presumption of regularity);
Perdue, Morgan, Shrewsbury (burden on appellant to show error); and
Honaker, Delorenzo, Hairston (unrecorded facts are treated as non-existent).

Thus, the Court refused to accept Gravely’s assertions about the geographical location of I-64, without record support, as a ground to overturn the lower courts’ decisions.

3. De Novo Trial and Failure to Prosecute

Once the circuit court denied the motion to dismiss, it moved—pursuant to W. Va. Code § 8-34-1(e)—to conduct a trial de novo on the underlying ordinance violation. This gave Gravely a full opportunity to contest the citation, challenge the officer’s testimony, and raise factual defenses.

Instead, Gravely:

Refused to participate in the trial; and
Chose to leave the courtroom before the trial commenced.

The circuit court then dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute. The Supreme Court saw no error in that decision. An appeal, especially a de novo appeal where the circuit court acts as a trial court, requires the appellant’s participation. When the appellant deliberately abandons the proceeding, dismissal is a straightforward, legally permissible response.

In practical terms, this meant that:

The municipal court conviction remained in effect; and
Gravely, by his own actions, forfeited the opportunity to fully litigate the citation in circuit court.

4. The Court’s Use of a Memorandum Decision (Rule 21(c))

The Court resolved this appeal via memorandum decision under Rule 21(c) of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure, concluding that there was:

No substantial question of law; and
No prejudicial error.

Memorandum decisions are typically used for cases that:

Apply existing law to relatively straightforward facts; and
Do not warrant a full, published opinion with new syllabus points.

Even as a memorandum decision, however, the case clarifies how existing doctrines apply to:

Territorial jurisdiction controversies involving municipal police on interstate highways; and
The burdens imposed on appellants—especially pro se appellants—seeking appellate relief in such matters.

V. Complex Concepts Simplified

1. “Jurisdiction” and “Territorial Jurisdiction”

Jurisdiction is the legal power of a court (or a law enforcement officer, in some contexts) to act in a case—e.g., to hear it, decide it, or enforce laws.
Territorial jurisdiction is the geographical area within which that power can be exercised. For a municipality, this is usually its corporate limits, as defined by statute or charter.

In this case, the key question was: Was the location on I-64, where the stop occurred, inside or outside the corporate limits of Milton? If inside, Milton’s officer could enforce Milton ordinances; if outside, serious questions about jurisdiction would arise. The Court assumed it was inside, because the municipality produced documentation saying so and the appellant produced nothing to the contrary.

2. “Trial de Novo”

A trial de novo means a “new trial” from the beginning, as if the earlier trial had not occurred. In appeals from municipal courts to circuit courts under W. Va. Code § 8-34-1(e):

The circuit court does not simply review the municipal record for legal errors; instead, it conducts a full new hearing, taking evidence and deciding facts afresh.
The defendant can present witnesses, cross-examine the officer, and raise factual defenses all over again.

Gravely’s refusal to participate in this de novo trial meant he voluntarily gave up the chance to relitigate the case in a full adversarial proceeding.

3. “Presumption of Regularity”

The presumption of regularity means that courts assume official acts and judicial proceedings have been done correctly and lawfully unless clear evidence shows otherwise. Applied here:

The Supreme Court assumed that the municipal court properly determined that it had jurisdiction; and
The Court also assumed that the circuit court performed its duties correctly, absent proof to the contrary.

Because Gravely did not supply such proof, his challenge failed.

4. “Record on Appeal”

The record on appeal (or appendix record) is the set of documents, exhibits, and transcripts that the appellate court is allowed to review. The appellate court generally cannot consider:

Facts that are stated in a brief but not supported by the record;
Documents that were never presented to the lower court; or
Evidence that exists but was never included in the appendix.

If a party fails to include key items—like the conviction order or proof of municipal boundaries—the appellate court acts as if those items do not exist. This was central to Gravely’s loss: he simply did not build an appellate record that could sustain his argument.

5. “Failure to Prosecute”

Failure to prosecute means that a party stops actively pursuing their case. This can happen when a plaintiff (or appellant) fails to:

Appear for hearings or trial;
Respond to court orders; or
Take necessary steps to move the case forward.

In this case, Gravely’s deliberate choice to leave the courtroom before trial was a clear example of failure to prosecute his appeal. The circuit court was entitled to dismiss the appeal as abandoned.

6. Appellate Briefing Requirements

Rule 10(c)(7) requires that appellate briefs:

State the points of fact and law clearly;
Identify the standard of review (e.g., de novo, abuse of discretion);
Provide case law and other legal authorities; and
Include specific record citations (e.g., “App. 45–46”) showing where issues were raised below.

The Court’s emphasis on these rules signals that even self-represented litigants must make a genuine effort to comply. Failure to do so increases the likelihood that claimed errors will simply be disregarded.

VI. Impact and Significance

A. Practical Impact on Municipal Traffic Enforcement

While the decision does not rewrite the law on municipal jurisdiction, it has meaningful practical effects:

Municipal officers on highways: The case tacitly affirms that a municipal officer can enforce municipal traffic ordinances on an interstate highway segment, provided it lies within the city’s corporate limits. The appellate court will not second-guess that jurisdiction without a record-based challenge.
Minimal evidentiary showing suffices for jurisdiction when unopposed: If a municipality produces basic documentation showing a highway segment lies within its boundaries, and the defendant offers no contrary evidence, the courts will accept that showing as adequate, especially in light of the presumption of regularity.

B. Reinforcement of Appellate Burdens

For appellate practice in West Virginia, the case is a strong reminder of several points:

Designate a full record: Appellants must ensure that all necessary documents (orders, transcripts, exhibits) are included in the appendix. Omissions will be fatal to many arguments.
Support every assignment of error with record citations: Unsupported assertions—even if they might be factually correct—will be disregarded.
Rule 10 compliance matters: Thin, rule-deficient briefs, especially from pro se litigants, significantly reduce the likelihood of success on appeal.

C. Treatment of Pro Se Litigants

The Court does not mention any special leniency for Gravely as a self-represented litigant. Instead, it explicitly applies the same standards that would apply to any lawyer:

He must comply with Rule 10;
He must designate an adequate record; and
He must carry the burden of showing error.

This underlines a consistent principle: pro se status does not excuse non-compliance with procedural and appellate rules. Courts will endeavor to be fair, but they will not act as advocates for self-represented parties.

D. Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute in De Novo Appeals

The decision also affirms that:

Appeals from municipal courts are not mere paper reviews. They are live, evidentiary trials in circuit court.
An appellant who refuses to participate cannot expect to preserve his appeal; dismissal for failure to prosecute is a natural and permissible consequence.

For practitioners, this underscores that advising a client to walk out or refuse to proceed in a de novo appeal is nearly guaranteed to forfeit that appeal.

VII. Conclusion

State of West Virginia & Municipality of Milton v. Gravely is a relatively brief memorandum decision, but it crystallizes several important doctrines that are central to appellate and municipal practice in West Virginia.

Key takeaways include:

Territorial jurisdiction challenges must be grounded in the record. Mere assertion that a stop occurred outside municipal limits, without evidence, will not suffice to overturn a conviction.
Municipal courts and officers benefit from a presumption of regularity. Unless an appellant affirmatively proves an irregularity—such as lack of jurisdiction—courts will presume proceedings and jurisdiction were proper.
The appellant bears the burden to:
- Designate an adequate record;
- Comply with briefing rules (Rule 10); and
- Show error affirmatively appearing in that record.
De novo appeals require active participation. A defendant who refuses to participate in a de novo trial in circuit court risks dismissal of the appeal for failure to prosecute.

Although the Court did not issue new syllabus points or reshape jurisdictional doctrine, the decision operationalizes long-standing principles in the specific context of municipal traffic enforcement on interstate highways. It sends a clear message: absent evidence to the contrary, municipal territorial jurisdiction will be presumed, and appellate courts will not rescue appellants who neither make their record nor make their argument.

Presumption of Municipal Territorial Jurisdiction and the Appellant’s Burden on De Novo Appeals: Commentary on State of West Virginia & Municipality of Milton v. Gravely