State ex rel. Games-Neely v. Sanders, 32875.
| Decision Date | 17 February 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 32875.,32875. |
| Citation | 641 S.E.2d 153 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of West Virginia ex rel. Pamela Jean GAMES-NEELY Petitioner, v. Honorable David H. SANDERS, Judge of the Circuit Court of Berkeley County, and Jason Eric Vanmetre, Respondents. |
1. A defendant incarcerated under a fugitive warrant in this State may not be held solely on that warrant for a period exceeding the aggregate of ninety days as provided for under W. Va.Code §§ 5-1-9(f) and (h) (2002) (Repl.Vol.2002).
2. When a person who has been charged with committing a crime within the State of West Virginia is arrested in this State on a fugitive warrant for crime(s) committed in another state, he or she may waive extradition proceedings. However, upon the election of a county prosecuting attorney to prosecute the defendant for a pending charge in this State prior to his or her extradition to such other jurisdiction, the defendant's waiver of extradition proceedings shall be unenforceable until such time as the defendant has been timely tried and either acquitted or convicted and punished in this state.
Pamela Jean Games-Neely, Prosecuting Attorney, Christopher C. Quasenbarth, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Martinsburg, for the Petitioner.
John P. Adams, Public Defender Corporation, Martinsburg, for Respondent Jason Eric VanMetre.
In this action in prohibition, petitioner, the Prosecuting Attorney for Berkeley County, seeks to prevent the enforcement of the October 31, 2005, order of the Circuit Court of Berkeley County allowing a defendant, who has been arraigned on criminal charges in West Virginia and released on bail therefor, to waive extradition proceedings and be released to the Commonwealth of Virginia, prior to the conclusion of the criminal proceedings against him in West Virginia. After listening to the oral arguments of the parties, carefully reviewing the legal memoranda of counsel, and considering the pertinent legal authorities, we grant the writ as moulded.
During the October 2005 term of the Circuit Court of Berkeley County, Jason Eric VanMetre (hereinafter referred to as "Mr. VanMetre"), defendant below and one of the respondents herein, was indicted for the felony offense of robbery in the second degree.1 Mr. VanMetre was arraigned before the circuit court on October 24, 2005. Trial was set for February 15, 2006. Mr. VanMetre was released on bail.2
Earlier, on September 8, 2005, Mr. VanMetre had been indicted in the Commonwealth of Virginia for the felony offenses of Grand Larceny and Robbery.3 These alleged crimes are unrelated to the crime charged in West Virginia.4 The Commonwealth of Virginia filed a fugitive warrant with respect to the aforementioned indictments. Mr. VanMetre was picked up on the fugitive warrant and placed in the Eastern Regional Jail to await extradition proceedings.5 Mr. VanMetre indicated his desire to waive extradition proceedings and a hearing on the matter was scheduled in the circuit court for October 31, 2005. At the hearing, the Prosecuting Attorney for Berkeley County (hereinafter referred to as "the Prosecuting Attorney"), the Petitioner in this matter, opposed permitting Mr. VanMetre to waive proceedings related to his extradition to the Commonwealth of Virginia during the pendency of the criminal proceedings against him in West Virginia. The Prosecuting Attorney argued that Mr. VanMetre's speedy trial rights under W. Va.Code § 62-3-21 (1959) (Repl.Vol.2005) would be placed at risk if the State voluntarily relinquished him to another jurisdiction. The Prosecuting Attorney further argued that she should have discretion, under W. Va.Code § 5-1-9(j) (2002) (Repl.Vol.2002),6 to prevent extradition before a defendant has been tried and discharged or convicted and punished in this State. After hearing the parties arguments, the circuit court ruled that Mr. VanMetre would be permitted to waive extradition proceedings on the Virginia charges. The circuit court explained that "if the defendant waives extradition, the State may preserve their [sic] ability to prosecute the defendant by filing a detainer with Virginia and that otherwise the defendant is left accruing `dead time'7 in West Virginia's jail on the Virginia fugitive warrant." (Footnote added). However, the circuit court granted the Prosecuting Attorney's request to stay its ruling to allow the instant petition for writ of prohibition to be filed in this Court. We granted a rule to show cause and now grant the writ as moulded.8
The instant case is before this Court on a petition for writ of Prohibition.
A writ of prohibition will not issue to prevent a simple abuse of discretion by a trial court. It will only issue where the trial court has no jurisdiction or having such jurisdiction exceeds its legitimate powers. W. Va.Code, 53-1-1.
Syllabus point 2, State ex rel. Peacher v. Sencindiver, 160 W.Va. 314, 233 S.E.2d 425 (1977). The Prosecuting Attorney argues that the circuit court exceeded its legitimate powers by permitting an arraigned criminal defendant awaiting felony trial to waive extradition to a foreign jurisdiction over the State's objection. In this regard, we have held that
[i]n determining whether to entertain and issue the writ of prohibition for cases not involving an absence of jurisdiction but only where it is claimed that the lower tribunal exceeded its legitimate powers, this Court will examine five factors: (1) whether the party seeking the writ has no other adequate means, such as direct appeal, to obtain the desired relief; (2) whether the petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way that is not correctable on appeal; (3) whether the lower tribunal's order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law; (4) whether the lower tribunal's order is an oft repeated error or manifests persistent disregard for either procedural or substantive law; and (5) whether the lower tribunal's order raises new and important problems or issues of law of first impression. These factors are general guidelines that serve as a useful starting point for determining whether a discretionary writ of prohibition should issue. Although all five factors need not be satisfied, it is clear that the third factor, the existence of clear error as a matter of law, should be given substantial weight.
Syllabus point 4, State ex rel. Hoover v. Berger, 199 W.Va. 12, 483 S.E.2d 12 (1996). Furthermore,
[i]n determining whether to grant a rule to show cause in prohibition when a court is not acting in excess of its jurisdiction, this Court will look to the adequacy of other available remedies such as appeal and to the over-all economy of effort and money among litigants, lawyers and courts; however, this Court will use prohibition in this discretionary way to correct only substantial, clear-cut, legal errors plainly in contravention of a clear statutory, constitutional, or common law mandate which may be resolved independently of any disputed facts and only in cases where there is a high probability that the trial will be completely reversed if the error is not corrected in advance.
Syllabus point 1, Hinkle v. Black, 164 W.Va. 112, 262 S.E.2d 744 (1979). With these principles in mind, we proceed to address the issues herein raised.
In this case, the Prosecuting Attorney wishes to try Mr. VanMetre on the charges pending against him in West Virginia prior to his extradition to the Commonwealth of Virginia, while Mr. VanMetre wishes to waive extradition proceedings and voluntarily surrender to Virginia prior to being tried in West Virginia. Whether the state may prevent Mr. VanMetre from waiving extradition has become an issue in this case because Mr. VanMetre has been released on bail with respect to the charges against him in West Virginia. Consequently, if he is permitted to waive extradition proceedings, then once he is released from custody on the fugitive warrant, he may voluntarily turn himself over to Virginia authorities before being tried in relation to the charges against him in West Virginia, assuming there is no condition attached to his bail that restricts his travel. Consequently, in this action in prohibition, the relief sought by the Prosecuting Attorney is two fold. First, the Prosecuting Attorney seeks to keep Mr. VanMetre incarcerated on the fugitive warrant until such time as his West Virginia criminal proceedings have concluded. Next, the Prosecuting Attorney seeks to prevent Mr. VanMetre from voluntarily waiving extradition before he has been tried and acquitted or convicted and punished for the crime he allegedly committed in this State. We address each of these issues in turn.
Acknowledging that there are statutory time limitations placed on the incarceration of a defendant being held on a fugitive warrant, the Prosecuting Attorney asks this Court to hold that the time limits imposed be suspended pending resolution of the State's charges. Mr. VanMetre argues in response that any attempt to incarcerate him beyond the statutory time limit for a fugitive warrant would violate numerous constitutional rights.9
Under W. Va.Code § 5-1-9(f), a person may initially be held on a fugitive warrant for only thirty days.10 If the governor does not issue a "governor's warrant of arrest"11 by the expiration of that thirty day period, a judge or magistrate may recommit the person for a further period not to exceed sixty days pursuant to W. Va.Code § 5-1-9(h).12
The Prosecuting Attorney asks this Court to find that the above described ninety-day time frame is tolled when there are charges pending against a defendant in West Virginia. The Prosecuting Attorney cites numerous cases in support of her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holcomb v. Ballard
... ... a strict construction in favor of the prisoner.’ State ex rel. Ringer v. Boles, 151 W.Va. 864, 871, 157 S.E.2d ... See State ex rel. Games–Neely v. Sanders, 220 W.Va. 230, 239, 641 S.E.2d 153, 162 (2006) (“ ... ...
-
Patton v. Cnty. of Berkeley
...has filed suit against the Berkeley County Sheriff’s Department, not the Sheriff.17 168 W. Va. 745, 285 S.E.2d 500 (1981).18 220 W.Va. 230, 641 S.E.2d 153 (2006).19 West Virginia Code § 55-17-6(a) (2016) provides that "[i]t is the express intent of the Legislature that the provisions of thi......
-
Prokop v. Francis
... ... corpus and ordered that he be extradited to the State of Missouri to face charges of criminal nonpayment of child ... in the extradition papers.' Point 2, Syllabus, State ex rel. Mitchell v. Allen, 155 W.Va. 530, 185 S.E.2d 355 (1971)." ... Games-Neely v. Sanders, 220 W.Va. 230, 641 S.E.2d 153 (2006), in which ... ...