homepage logo

Ingold Sentenced

By Staff | Jun 10, 2009

Cecil Dewayne Ingold

Although Judge David W. Hummel Jr. listened to Cecil Dewayne Ingold’s plea for home confinement in the courtroom on May 27, he sentenced him to no less than one year and no more than five in the West Virginia Men’s Penitentiary.

Ingold, 51, of New Matamoras, was found guilty by a jury for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver on April 7.

His attorney Jeremiah Gardner asked for a new trial, citing court case Arizona vs. Gant. Gardner explained to the courtroom that Sergeant Steve Kastigar asked Ingold to search his vehicle during his arrest and Ingold denied his request.

Prosecutor Tim Haught told the courtroom that the Gant vs. Arizona supreme court case decision was on April 21, after April 7 when a jury in Wetzel County found Ingold guilty. Haught went on explaining that Kastigar saw objects (pertaining to marijuana use) in plain view looking into the vehicle’s windows. He said the officer had a right to search the vehicle since it contained information for an arrest.

Hummel denied the request for a new trial, noting that Ingold was under arrest and that the vehicle did contain evidence.

Gardner called to the witness stand Ingold’s mother, Janet, on Ingold’s behalf and also his brother, Joseph Ingold. They both asked the judge to grant home confinement since Ingold’s mother has sight problems and they would like Cecil Ingold to live at her residence to assist her.

Haught brought to the attention of the courtroom that Cecil Ingold had scales and marijuana in his truck, plus cash and pipes on him. Haught continued that because of past law enforcement employment, “This is a total lack of respect for the law.” He has showed no expression of remorse nor did he ask for drug treatment at the trial, noted Haught.

Ingold spoke, telling the judge he did not sell marijuana and that if he was granted home confinement, he could help his mother by living with her. He also told the judge he was at the mercy of the court and that his family mattered the most to him.

Hummel asked Adult Probation Officer John Lantz to explain to the courtroom about home confinement. Lantz explained that it was created by the state for misdemeanor crimes and driving under the influence of alcohol arrests (DUI’s). He told the court that the crimes for this case are not for home confinement.

Hummel told Ingold that he was convicted of a felony and that a jury on April 7 only took 18 minutes to come to their decision. He continued saying, that is “an exclamation of a verdict.” Hummel brought forth Ingold’s past law enforcement employment and being a past correctional officer and told him, “You should’ve known better.”