WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 5452

Relating to the standard of proof required for a final parole or probation revocation hearing.

2026 Regular Session Introduced by J.B. Akers

HB 5452 clarifies that final parole/probation revocation hearings must use a preponderance of the evidence as the standard of proof.

To House Judiciary
#corrections
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 5452

Summary of HB 5452 (2026) — West Virginia

Purpose

HB 5452, introduced by Delegate J.B. Akers, clarifies the standard of proof used at final parole or probation revocation hearings. The bill amends §62-12-10 of the West Virginia Code to specify that the standard of proof for such final hearings is proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Key Provisions

  • Standard of Proof (Final Hearing): The bill explicitly states that the standard of proof required for a final parole or probation revocation hearing is “proof by a preponderance of the evidence.” This replies to uncertainties by confirming the same standard used in many civil proceedings.

  • Current Provocations and Consequences (unchanged framework): The statute already provides a framework for determining violations and potential sanctions:

    • If reasonable cause exists to believe a probationer has violated conditions (including absconding supervision, new criminal conduct (excluding minor traffic or simple possession), or violation of a special condition), the court may revoke the suspension or impose sentence.
    • For violations of supervision (excluding certain probation conditions), there are escalating sanctions:
    • First violation: up to 60 days confinement.
    • Second violation: up to 120 days confinement.
    • Third violation: possible full revocation of suspension or execution of sentence, with credit for time served.
    • The computation of confinement time excludes time spent on probation between release and arrest.
    • Costs for confining felony probationers are funded from the Division of Corrections; orders of confinement must be reported to the Commissioner of Corrections within five days.

  • Judicial Discretion and Justice Considerations: If a judge believes the interests of justice do not require confinement despite a violation (except felonies), the judge may release the probationer back on probation, with potential for departing from the stated sentence limitations upon written findings.

Affected Parties and Impacts

  • Probationers/Parolees: The procedural change affects how evidence is evaluated at the final revocation stage, aligning the standard with a preponderance of the evidence. Sanctions and procedures for violations remain governed by the existing framework, including confinement timelines and reporting requirements.
  • Courts and Clerks: No procedural overhaul beyond codifying the standard of proof; ongoing duties include issuing warrants, handling revocation hearings, and timely reporting orders of confinement to the Department of Corrections.
  • Department of Corrections: Continues to receive confinement orders and funding for costs related to confining felony probationers; updated reporting timelines still apply.

Procedural and Timeline Aspects

  • Effective Standard: The bill defines the standard of proof for final revocation hearings as a preponderance of the evidence.
  • Effective Date: As introduced, the bill would become law upon enactment following the legislative process (the text does not specify a different effective date; standard enactment timelines apply).
  • Action History: Filed and referred to the House Judiciary on February 11, 2026.

Overall Assessment

HB 5452 is a targeted clarification of the evidentiary standard for final parole/probation revocation hearings, ensuring a consistent, civil-standard burden of proof. It does not alter the existing scales of penalties for violations but confirms the proof level judges must apply when determining revocation outcomes.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.