State ex rel. M.L.N. v. Greiner
| Decision Date | 04 June 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 17536,17536 |
| Citation | 178 W.Va. 479,360 S.E.2d 554 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. M.L.N., G.F. & M.L.W. v. Stephen F. GREINER, Sheriff, etc., et al. |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. "It is a cardinal rule of construction governing the interpretation of statutes that the purpose for which a statute has been enacted may be resorted to by the courts in ascertaining the legislative intent." Syl. Pt. 4, State ex rel. Bibb v. Chambers, 138 W.Va. 701, 77 S.E.2d 297 (1953).
2. The State's interest in taking custody of delinquents is rehabilitation. Due process therefore requires that the nature of the custody bear a relation to that rehabilitative purpose.
3. Youths between the ages of eighteen and twenty years, who remain under juvenile court jurisdiction pursuant to West Virginia Code § 49-5-2 (1986 Replacement Vol.), come within the definition of "child" as set forth in that Code section and must be afforded the same commitment and rehabilitation rights as delinquent children under the age of eighteen who are under juvenile court jurisdiction.
4. Under West Virginia Code §§ 49-5-16(a) (1986 Replacement Vol.) and 49-5A-2 (1986 Replacement Vol.), the Legislature intended a prohibition against jailing youths between the ages of eighteen and twenty years, who remain under juvenile jurisdiction, within the sight or sound of adult prisoners. Therefore, such persons may be incarcerated in county jails only if they are housed in a separate section designed for housing juveniles exclusively, which is not within the sight or sound of adult prisoners.
Jeffrey B. Reed, Lantz, Rudolph & Palmer, Annette L. Fantasia, Parkersburg, for appellants.
Harry Deitzler, Pros. Atty., Parkersburg, Mary Beth Kershner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Facility Review Panel, Mary Downey, for appellees.
The relators in this original jurisdiction action are three eighteen year old male persons who remain under continuing juvenile court jurisdiction pursuant to West Virginia Code § 49-5-2 (1986 Replacement Vol.). 1 They allege that their confinement in the "juvenile detention portion" of the Wood County Correctional Center violates certain minimal standards of confinement mandated by the Legislature and that the overall conditions of their confinement are unconstitutionally deficient. Based on these allegations, the relators have asked this Court to compel their permanent release from the Wood County Correctional Center and to compel their transfer to the West Central Regional Juvenile Detention Center.
Because the Wood County Correctional Center does not have an adequate separate section designed exclusively for detaining juveniles who are under continuing juvenile court jurisdiction, we find that confinement of such juveniles in the Correctional Center is illegal. Accordingly, we hereby issue a writ of mandamus ordering that neither the relators nor any other juveniles be confined in the Wood County Correctional Center until a separate juvenile detention section which meets the minimum statutory, regulatory and constitutional standards is completed. Because the relators are over the age of eighteen, we do not order that they be placed in the West Central Regional Juvenile Detention Center; however, the committing judge may order that they be confined in a suitable juvenile section of another county jail, or he may commit them to the custody of the commissioner of the Department of Corrections as youthful offenders.
This action was originated on February 6, 1987, by the filing of a petition for a writ of mandamus by M.L.N. and G.F.'s motion to intervene as a party. M.L.N. and G.F. were then being temporarily confined in the juvenile detention portion of the Wood County Correctional Center while awaiting probation modification hearings before Judge Arthur N. Gustke of the Circuit Court of Wood County. This portion of the jail is a single room, originally used as a counselling room, measuring 13'2"' by 7'6"'. The room lacks running water and toilet facilities.
Both M.L.N. and G.F. have histories as troubled, delinquent juveniles. Numerous placement alternatives have been tried since their respective delinquency adjudications for acts which if committed by adults would have been crimes, but none have proven successful. Most recently, M.L.N. and G.F., although not travelling together, absconded to Florida in violation of probation orders. While in Florida, both were taken into custody and charged with the commission of other crimes. The Florida authorities subsequently transferred M.L.N. and G.F. back to West Virginia under the Interstate Compact On Juveniles. W.Va.Code §§ 49-8-1 to -7 (1986 Replacement Vol.). Because of these and previous probation violations, the juvenile court concluded that more restrictive alternatives should be considered with respect to both youths. 2 Pending hearings on motions to modify the court's prior dispositional orders, the juvenile judge ordered that M.L.N. and G.F. be temporarily detained in the juvenile detention portion of the Wood County Correctional Center. 3
Upon the filing of M.L.N.'s petition we issued a rule to show cause against the respondents, the sheriff of Wood County, the county commissioners of Wood County and the West Virginia Department of Human Services, and we granted the motion to intervene by G.F. Simultaneously with the issuance of our rule, M.L.N. and G.F. were released on their own recognizance pending our disposition of this case.
Oral arguments were presented on March 3, 1987. On March 11, 1987, we granted the motion of M.L.W. to also intervene as a party to this proceeding. M.L.W. had originally been adjudicated delinquent and placed on probation at the age of seventeen. He, too, violated the terms of his probation and was placed in the West Central Regional Juvenile Detention Center, where he remained until his eighteenth birthday. On October 23, 1986, Judge Gustke entered the order sentencing M.L.W. to not more than six months in the Correctional Center. During a portion of that time, M.L.W. was housed in the juvenile detention room. Even though his release date, April 15, 1987, has passed, the issues arising from his intervention are capable of repetition and are not, therefore, rendered moot. 4
As noted in the amicus curiae brief filed by counsel for the Facility Review Panel of the Juvenile Justice Committee, 5 the threshold issue which we must address is whether delinquent eighteen year old youths who are under continuing juvenile court jurisdiction should be treated as juveniles or adults. The relators contend that, since by definition West Virginia Code § 49-5-2 includes "a person subject to the juvenile jurisdiction of the court," they must be treated as juveniles when jailed and must be housed, pursuant to West Virginia Code § 49-5-16(a) (1986 Replacement Vol.), out of the sight and sound of adult prisoners. 6 The respondents, on the other hand, submit that it is permissible, under West Virginia Code § 49-5-2, to commit delinquent eighteen year old youths to adult jails for a period not to exceed six months and that, therefore, no adverse legal consequences should arise when such persons are jailed within the sight and sound of adult inmates.
After careful review of the applicable statutes, we conclude that the relators, who remain under continuing juvenile court jurisdiction, do come within the definition set forth in West Virginia Code § 49-5-2 and must be afforded the same commitment and rehabilitation rights as delinquent juveniles under the age of eighteen who are under juvenile court jurisdiction. Furthermore, we find that the relators were unlawfully detained in the Wood County Correctional Center in violation of West Virginia Code §§ 49-5-16(a), 49-5A-2 (1986 Replacement Vol.) 7 and other relevant statutory provisions. We agree with the relators and the Facility Review Panel that the Wood County jail lacks adequate facilities for the incarceration of such juveniles.
In reaching this conclusion, we have applied general principles of statutory construction to reconcile the various statutes dealing with the disposition and detention of juveniles, including West Virginia Code §§ 49-5-2, 49-5-16(a), 49-5A-2 and 49-5-13 (1986 Replacement Vol.). Judicial interpretation is warranted in this case because of the ambiguous and possibly conflicting nature of the statutes involved. Syl. Pt. 1, Ohio County Commission v. Manchin, 171 W.Va. 552, 301 S.E.2d 183 (1983).
Under West Virginia Code § 49-5-2, a person over the age of eighteen and subject to the circuit court's juvenile jurisdiction may be sentenced to "not more than six months in jail." This section provides no guidelines on where in the jail or with whom such children may be confined. The Department of Human Services relies principally on this section to support its argument that eighteen year olds who are within continuing juvenile court jurisdiction may be incarcerated in a county jail with adults.
Under West Virginia Code § 49-5-16(a), however, there is a restriction on where in the county jail and with whom such juveniles may be confined. As we have previously recognized:
[A] child over fourteen years of age who is charged with a crime which would be a violent felony if committed by an adult, may, upon an order of the circuit court, be housed in a juvenile detention portion of a county facility, but not within sight [or sound] of adult prisoners.
Syl. Pt. 2, State ex rel. R.C.F. v. Wilt, 162 W.Va. 424, 252 S.E.2d 168 (1979) (). Additionally, under the relevant portions of West Virginia Code §§ 49-5-8(d) (1986 Replacement Vol.), 49-5-13(b) (1986 Replacement Vol.), 49-5-14(b) (1986 Replacement Vol.) and 49-5A-2, the circuit court judge has a duty to seek the least restrictive disposition and avoid placing a juvenile in jail.
Finally, under West Virginia Code § 49-5-13(b), the section which sets forth dispositional...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People in Interest of M.C.
...As one court noted, confinement of juveniles to adult jails "may well contribute to crime rather than reduce it." M.L.N. v. Greiner, 360 S.E.2d 554, 559 (W.Va.1987) (quoting R.C.F. v. Wilt, 162 W.Va. 424, 252 S.E.2d 168, 171 (1979)). No one here has argued that jail serves any rehabilitativ......
-
State v. KIRK N.
...materia in order to give effect to the Legislative intent gathered from the whole of the enactments." State ex rel. M.L.N. v. Greiner, 178 W.Va. 479, 483, 360 S.E.2d 554, 558 (1987). The focus of W.Va.Code, 49-5-1 et seq. is upon the juvenile's substantive and procedural rights, without sep......
-
State ex rel. Davis v. Vieweg
...Calhoun County Assessor v. Consolidated Gas Supply Corp., 178 W.Va. 230, 358 S.E.2d 791 (1987) (same); State ex rel. M.L.N. v. Greiner, 178 W.Va. 479, 360 S.E.2d 554 (1987) (same); Christie v. W. Va. Health Care Cost Review Authority, 176 W.Va. 420, 345 S.E.2d 22 (1986) (same); White v. Lin......
-
State v. Kirk, No. 31315 (W. Va. 12/4/2003)
...materia in order to give effect to the Legislative intent gathered from the whole of the enactments." State ex rel. M.L.N. v. Greiner, 178 W. Va. 479, 483, 360 S.E.2d 554, 558 (1987). The focus of W.Va. Code, 49-5-1 et seq. is upon the juvenile's substantive and procedural rights, without s......