Jaynell Graham
Editor
Sentencing was held January 29 in the case the State vs Tony Garretson, 58, of Hillsboro, in the matter of the April 10, 2023 deaths of Darren Jackson, 59, and his son, Ryan Jackson, 32.
The following is the complete Sentencing Order as received from the court:
On the 29th day of January 2025, the above referenced criminal action came on for Sentencing before the Honorable Robert E. Richardson, Circuit Judge. The State of West Virginia was present by its Special Prosecuting Attorney John G. Ours. The defendant appeared in person and by his counsel Michael Whitt and Kristopher Faerber.
Thereupon the court made inquiry of counsel as to whether all had received the Pre-Sentence Investigation report and whether or not there were any corrections or additions thereto necessary.
Thereupon defense counsel Michael Whitt advised the Court that the Pre-Sentence Investigation report was in all respects proper and there were no additions or corrections other than within the area on possible sentences it was indicated that a 60-day evaluation would be possible which is not the case with a misdemeanor, otherwise the Pre-Sentence was correct.
The State agreed with the representations of defense counsel.
Thereupon the Court requested of defense counsel their position with regard to sentencing.
Defense Counsel Michael Whitt requested of the Court: that the court suspend any sentence since the defendant had already served approximately 3 months of his sentence; that the defendant had learned his lesson; that the jail has turned out to be a violent place for the defendant, the defendant appearing with a black eye; that the defendant was desirous of receiving drug treatment and therapy; that the Tygart Valley Regional Jail was not a good place to receive the needed therapy; that the defendant was remorseful; that as many as 20 plus individuals from the area had written letters in support of the defendant, urging the court to consider the least restrictive alternative sentencing; and that jail serves no purpose at this time. Defense counsel’s entire response is more particularly set forth in the record of the proceeding this day.
The court then heard from the Defendant personally, who expressed his remorse for his actions and the consequences of those actions and requested that he be afforded an alternative sentence.
Thereupon the Court requested of the Special Prosecutor the State’s position with regard to sentencing.
The Special Prosecutor advised the Court: that the defendant had an extensive criminal history of arrests for approximately 18 misdemeanors and what the State believed was 17 felonies in the last thirty years; that the defendant’s criminal history was incomplete, in many instances, with regard to the defendant’s convictions; that the criminal history does show multiple convictions; that the defendant has a continuous history of problems with alcohol, and continuous problems with criminal activity that show a complete disregard for the consequences to others; that the defendant has shown a lack of accepting responsibility for what happened when he killed the two Jacksons; that in his statement to Probation Officer McCoy in the PSI with regard to his version as to what happened, he blamed the brakes being out of adjustment on his truck on an employee by the name of Ryan Moore; that there were many instances, from the time the defendant killed the Jacksons, ending with his statements in the PSI, when the defendant had been untruthful to Law Enforcement, his Home Incarceration Officer, Probation Officer McCoy, and by his representations in the PSI, unto the Court, that the defendant wasn’t truthful with Trooper Phillips when he gave his statement on the date the Jacksons were killed, by saying that he turned around before getting to the gravel pile and made no mention of the theft of the gravel when he had 8 or 10 tons on his truck; that he represented to Probation Officer McCoy that he wasn’t using methamphetamine in April of 2023 when he wrecked and killed the Jacksons, when Nurse Shepherd advised he admitted to using meth, and Jensen Dean did the drug test that showed him positive for meth on that day; that he represented unto the Trooper involved with his arrest for possession of methamphetamine in January of 2024 that the meth wasn’t his when we now know he admitted in the PSI to using meth 3 or 4 times a week during the months of December 2023, and January and February of 2024; that Defendant’s admitted violations of his bond supervision for possessing methamphetamine, now, according to his statement in the P S I, were in the neighborhood of 50 violations of his bond; that he violated his Home Incarceration by possessing and using meth and possessing a rifle; that the biggest falsehood being exercised upon the Court system was when the defendant advised Probation Officer McCoy that if he was given the opportunity to serve his sentence on Probation or Home Incarceration he would be willing to follow any rules and regulations set forth by the Court; that the defendant was in all probability expecting the Court to grant him probation or an alternative sentence since he had advised Probation Officer McCoy that in his extensive criminal history over the last 30 years he never served any time in jail and had been able to just pay a fine or receive alternative sentences; and that as a result of the aforesaid, it was the State’s belief that the defendant had given the Court no alternative other than to sentence the defendant to the maximum jail sentences provided by law and the maximum fines provided by law. The State also suggested to the Court that as a result of the additional 50 or so bond violations admitted and disclosed, that the Court order that the defendant’s bond be forfeited.
Thereupon the Court made inquiry of defense counsel with regard to their position on bond.
Defense Counsel Whitt advised the Court that the Law with regard to forfeiture advises that bond is for the purpose of the defendant’s appearance and not for his actions while on bond and that the defendant had appeared on every occasion when directed by the Court and that his bond violations hurt no one other than the defendant.
After hearing from counsel for the parties and from the defendant, the court advised the defendant: that the Court had reviewed the PSI, focusing upon defendant’s prior convictions, not his arrests without disposition; that in reviewing the defendant’s convictions, his record suggests that he has [a] 30 year history of doing what he wants, when he wants, with little or no consideration or regard to how it might affect others with him or around him; that the Court has also considered the many violations of the Defendant’s supervised bond, and the violations of his Home Incarceration; that Defendant’s actions, while on bond supervision and Home Incarceration, are indicative of his propensity to disregard rules he doesn’t like; and that as a result of the defendant’s actions, the Court concludes that he is not a suitable candidate for community-based sentence such as probation or home incarceration.
Based upon these findings, and such further findings as may appear upon the record of this proceeding, the Court, with regard to Defendant’s conviction for Count III, the Negligent Homicide of Ryan Jackson, in violation of WV Code §17C-5-1(a), sentenced the defendant to one year in jail, the maximum sentence, and fined the defendant $1,000.00, the maximum fine. The Court, with regard to Defendant’s conviction for Count IV, the Negligent Homicide of Darren Jackson, in violation of WV Code §17C-5-1(a), sentenced the defendant to one year in jail, the maximum sentence, and fined the defendant $1,000.00, the maximum fine. The Court ordered that the Defendant pay all costs of this action as determined by the Circuit Clerk.
The Court then addressed the State’s previously filed motion to forfeit the defendant’s bond and after considering the record of this proceeding and the applicable legal authorities, and for reasons set forth upon the record, the Court DENIED the State’s motion and ORDERED the Defendant’s bond be returned to the surety that posted the bond.
For the purpose of this Sentencing Order, the defendant was convicted on the 19th day of November 2024, upon his Guilty pleas to both Counts 3 and 4. The defendant was sentenced on January 29, 2025. The sentences are ordered to be served consecutively. The defendant is entitled to 96 days of jail credit on Count III. The Defendant shall first serve the sentence for Count III. The defendant will begin serving Count IV after having served and discharged Count III. The defendant is entitled to no other credit.