Crain v. Bordenkircher, 16646
| Decision Date | 25 July 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 16646,16646 |
| Citation | 185 W.Va. 603,408 S.E.2d 355 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | Robert Carl CRAIN, et al., Appellant, v. Donald E. BORDENKIRCHER, Warden, West Virginia Penitentiary, et al., Appellees. |
Syllabus by the Court
"This Court has a duty to take such actions as are necessary to protect and guard the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of West Virginia." Syllabus point 2, Crain v. Bordenkircher, 180 W.Va. 246, 376 S.E.2d 140 (1988).
James F. Companion, William D. Wilmoth, Barbara L. Baxter, Schrader, Byrd, Byrum & Companion, Wheeling, for appellants.
Rita Stuart, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charleston, for appellees.
This proceeding was instituted in 1981 by inmates at the West Virginia Penitentiary, who contended that their confinement in that penitentiary constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article III, § 5 of the West Virginia Constitution. It has been subject of a series of opinions and orders outlined in Crain v. Bordenkircher, 182 W.Va. 787, 392 S.E.2d 227 (1990).
In the early stages of the proceedings, the Court concluded that confinement in the existing penitentiary at Moundsville constituted cruel and unusual punishment. To remedy the situation, the respondents elected to erect new penitentiary facilities, to be known as the Mount Olive Correctional Complex in Fayette County, West Virginia. In the above opinion, this Court found that the respondents were attempting to comply with this Court's mandates. The Court, however, placed the matter on the January, 1991, docket to insure that further appropriate progress was made toward opening the new penitentiary facilities.
On January 8, 1991, the respondents submitted a status report relating to the progress made toward the construction of the Mount Olive Correctional Complex. That report showed that the respondents had prepared a master operational and architectural program for the new facility and had made proposals relating to housing, programs, and support services. Architectural plans had been prepared and some site preparation had been undertaken.
The report further indicated that the issuance of bonds to finance several correctional projects, including the new penitentiary, had been authorized by Senate resolution. A number of the bonds had been issued and sold, and funds earmarked for the new penitentiary had been transferred to a bank trustee.
It appears that certain objections were raised to the architectural proposals, and the matter was referred to this Court's Special Master. Upon referral to the Special Master, the respondents filed additional information and altered the proposal in a manner to make it acceptable to the master. The master, upon examination of the new submissions, concluded that the proposed plan was acceptable.
In his latest review of the situation, the Special Master reported that on April 16, 1991, the final "In Process Review" of the architectural plans for the new Mount Olive Complex had been completed and indicated that the plans were generally acceptable. 1 However, at the time of the final review, cost estimates were not yet available. When the cost estimates were received on April 25, 1991, it was determined that costs would exceed the amount budgeted for the complex. Since that time, efforts have been completed to bring the costs and budgeted amounts into balance. The efforts include modification of the architectural plans. The Special Master advises that a funding commitment has been made by the West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Authority, through its supervising officer, the Secretary of the Department of Safety.
As a consequence of the actions taken by the respondents, the Special Master has recommended that this Court approve the architectural plans submitted, subject to modification for budgetary purposes contained in the architect's letter dated July 9, 1991. 2 The Special Master has also recommended that this Court require that any future modifications of the architectural plans be submitted to the Special Master for approval prior to implementation. We are advised that the respondents do not object to these recommendations. Such recommendations are consequently approved by this Court, and the respondents are hereby directed to follow the recommendations.
The Special Master's report has also recognized that the respondents are required under Crain to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crain v. Bordenkircher, 16646
...to remedy the constitutional deficiencies that we found in the penitentiary in our original Crain decision...." 185 W.Va. 603, 605, 408 S.E.2d 355, 357 (1991). We adopted the special master's recommendations that this Court approve the architectural plans, subject to modifications for budge......
- Committee on Legal Ethics of West Virginia State Bar v. Wilson
-
Crain v. Bordenkircher
...S.E.2d 227, 230 (1990) (Crain V ) (finding adequate progress "to comply with the mandates of the Court"), Crain v. Bordenkircher, 185 W.Va. 603, 408 S.E.2d 355 (1991) (Crain VI ) (directing that the special master receive the plans, policies, procedures and arrangement to staff the new peni......