Crain v. Bordenkircher, 16646
| Decision Date | 15 December 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 16646,16646 |
| Citation | 454 S.E.2d 108,193 W.Va. 63 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | Robert Carl CRAIN, et al., Petitioners Below, Appellees, v. Donald E. BORDENKIRCHER, Warden, et al., Respondents Below, Appellants. |
Syllabus by the Court
1. "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).
2. Inherent in this Court's 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 is the related duty to supervise all necessary actions through completion and the concomitant responsibility to revise and/or modify directives issued by lower courts pertaining to such actions.
James F. Companion, Schrader, Recht, Byrd, Companion & Gurley, Barbara L. Baxter, West Virginia Legal Services Plan, Inc., Wheeling, for appellees.
Rita A. Stuart, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Charleston, for appellants.
This case is before the Court upon the appeal of Donald E. Bordenkircher, as Warden for the West Virginia Penitentiary ("Penitentiary"), et al., 1 ("Appellants"), from the September 2, 1993, memorandum order of the Circuit Court of Marshall County 2 which granted a "credit on sentence" from the minimum term of indeterminate sentences or from the fixed term of determinate sentences of inmates who have or will have served time at the Penitentiary after July 1, 1992. After reviewing this matter, we conclude that the circuit court's ruling was in error, and accordingly, we reverse.
On February 2, 1993, the Appellees, Robert Crain and other Penitentiary inmates, filed a motion for time cuts with the circuit court, wherein they sought the following relief:
1. Reduced parole eligibility dates for all qualified inmates,
2. Reduced discharge dates for all qualified inmates, and
3. Setting parole eligibility dates for those inmates serving life without mercy sentences.
After considering the written memoranda of the parties on the issue, the circuit court issued the following order:
It is ADJUDGED and ORDERED that all inmates now in the custody of the Commissioner of Corrections, or hereafter committed to the custody of the Commissioner of Corrections shall be given commutation from their sentences for having served time at the West Virginia Penitentiary for Men at Moundsville. Such commutation of sentence shall be called 'credit on sentence'. The 'credit on sentence' shall be deducted from the minimum term of indeterminate sentences or from the fixed term of determinate sentences. Each inmate who serves time, or who served time, actually incarcerated at the West Virginia Penitentiary for Men at Moundsville after July 1, 1992, shall receive one day of credit on sentence for each day he is incarcerated. No inmate sentenced to a life sentence shall receive credit on sentence under this order. However, inmates serving life sentences with mercy and recidivists serving life sentences, are given a 'credit on sentence' against the minimum sentence that they must serve to be eligible for consideration for parole. An inmate under two or more consecutive sentences shall be allowed credit on sentence as if the several sentences, when the maximum terms thereof are added together, were all one sentence.
The circuit court expressly stayed the effective date of the order for sixty days to permit the filing of this appeal.
The only issue before the Court is whether the September 2, 1993, order improperly granted certain Penitentiary inmates a "credit on sentence." The Appellants contend that the order is contrary to this Court's prior decisions and frustrates the efforts of the Division of Corrections in its continued efforts to comply with this Court's scheduled mandates. Further, the Appellants maintain that this Court has previously considered the possibility of early release of prisoners from the Penitentiary and determined such release to be inappropriate. In contrast, the Appellees argue that the ordered time cuts properly fell within the scope of the lower court's inherent equitable powers to fashion whatever remedy necessary to uphold the strictures of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article III, Section 5 of the West Virginia Constitution. In addition, the Appellees contend that the remedy ordered by the trial court in no way conflicts with the law established by this Court in prior related proceedings and that compelling institutional and public policy considerations warrant an affirmance of the circuit court's order.
* * * * * *
Since 1988 we have repeatedly set forth the following holding as the basis for each Crain decision: "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." Syl.Pt. 2, Crain v. Bordenkircher, 180 W.Va. 246, 376 S.E.2d 140 (1988) (Crain III ). 3 To fully appreciate the nature and extent of this Court's ongoing effort to monitor the situation at the Penitentiary in conjunction with the construction of the Mount Olive Correctional Complex ("MOCC") and the role we have undertaken in these proceedings, we review the history of Crain.
The first Crain proceeding originated in 1981 when Penitentiary prisoners sought a writ of prohibition, alleging that the conditions of their confinement constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article III, Section 5 of the West Virginia Constitution. This Court appointed the Honorable Arthur M. Recht to conduct a hearing on the issues raised by the Petitioners. Following a hearing, Judge Recht issued a Final Order which concluded that the conditions at the Penitentiary constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Judge Recht made certain recommendations to bring the Penitentiary conditions within constitutional standards and ordered the Department of Corrections to devise a compliance plan targeted at achieving constitutional standards.
Crain I began when the inmates appealed the successor special judge's 4 approval of the Department of Corrections' compliance plan. The sole issue before us in that case was whether the compliance plan met the detailed provisions set forth in the Final Order prepared by Judge Recht. Finding that the compliance plan did not completely comport with Judge Recht's order, we directed that a revised compliance plan be submitted by the Department of Corrections within 120 days. 176 W.Va. 338, 365, 342 S.E.2d 422, 450 (1986). Rather than assigning the continuing duties of reviewing the revised compliance plan and furnishing this Court with reports and recommendations to a circuit judge, we deemed it necessary to appoint a special master to assume these duties. 5
Crain II was instituted to resolve the issue of who was required to compensate the special master. We concluded in that case that the Department of Corrections, as the "party whose conduct necessitated the reference to the special master or monitor," was required to bear such expenses. Syllabus, 178 W.Va. 96, 357 S.E.2d 778 (1987).
The subject of Crain III was the declaration by the Department of Corrections that it could not comply with the revised compliance plan 6 due to lack of funding. Crain v. Bordenkircher, 180 W.Va. 246, 247, 376 S.E.2d 140, 141 (1988). Noting that "the conditions have not improved, nor has the situation become any less unconstitutional since we last directed the Department of Corrections to remedy the problems[,]" we "order[ed] that the State Penitentiary at Moundsville be closed by July 1, 1992." Id. at 247-48, 376 S.E.2d at 141-42. Under the Court's authority to enforce the Constitution, we issued a rule to show cause against various state officers as to why this Court should not place the Penitentiary in receivership, grant the receiver power to construct a new facility, and issue a writ of mandamus requiring the State Building Commission to provide for the financing of the construction of the new facility. Id. at 250, 376 S.E.2d at 144.
Crain IV again recognized the numerous delays in constructing a new facility and expressly directed the Department of Corrections to submit to the special master a plan containing specific proposals for the construction of a new penitentiary by November 14, 1989. 7 181 W.Va. 231, 234, 382 S.E.2d 68, 71 (1989).
Crain V involved the appearance of the parties before this Court on April 3, 1990, for the purpose of providing a status report on the progress made towards implementing the plan for replacing the Penitentiary. 182 W.Va. 787, 789, 392 S.E.2d 227, 229 (1990). At the hearing, we indicated that "the State is progressing as it should to comply with the mandates of this Court." Id. at 790, 392 S.E.2d at 230. We also directed that the Directors of the Department of Safety and the West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority be made parties to the case. Id.
Crain VI was yet another opportunity for this Court to be provided a status report concerning the prison construction project. We observed that the process of reviewing these status reports is a "continu[ation] [of] our on going [sic] general supervision of the project as a result of our obligation 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 budgetary purposes, and we agreed with his recommendation that any future modifications of the architectural plans be submitted to the special master for approval prior to implementation. Id.
A status...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Honaker
...failed to comply with in limine motion.) 17 The defendant in this case refused to take advantage of her opportunity at trial to explain [193 W.Va. 63] her statement and she must, therefore, suffer the consequences of her choice. Thus, any harm flowing from the trial court's willingness to p......
-
Shamblen v. Fragale, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-cv-24610
...prisoners may result in release of the victims" but stating a "great reluctance" to order such a remedy); see also Crain v. Bordenkircher, 454 S.E.2d 108, 114 (W. Va. 1994) (recognizing the possibility of release as a remedy for prisoners suffering conditions that amounted to cruel and unus......
-
Crain v. Bordenkircher, 16646
...numerous cases styled Crain v. Bordenkircher which have been before this Court may be found in our most recent Crain v. Bordenkircher, --- W.Va. ----, 454 S.E.2d 108 (1994). As indicated above, the parties agree to meet with the Special Master before the year's end to review all areas of op......
-
Crain v. Bordenkircher, 16646
...report. Hearing scheduled. BROTHERTON, J., did not participate. FOX, Judge, sitting by temporary assignment. 1 See Crain v. Bordenkircher, 193 W.Va. 63, 454 S.E.2d 108 (1994), wherein we summarized our various opinions relating to the transition from the WVP to the ...