State v. Riley
| Citation | 215 S.E.2d 460,158 W.Va. 823 |
| Decision Date | 03 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 13491,13494,s. 13491 |
| Court | Supreme Court of West Virginia |
| Parties | STATE of West Virginia v. Kenneth A. RILEY and STATE of West Virginia v. Donald W. CUSHWA. |
Syllabus by the Court
1. 'Where a statute is plain and unambiguous, a court has a duty to apply and not to construe its provisions.' Point 2, syllabus, Eggleton v. State Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, 214 S.E.2d 864, decided by this Court May 20, 1975.
2. Penal statutes are strictly construed against the state and favorably for the defendant.
Robert M. Steptoe, Martinsburg, for plaintiff in error.
Chauncey H. Browning, Jr., Atty. Gen., Richard E. Hardison, Deputy Atty. Gen., E. Leslie Hoffman, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charleston, for defendant in error.
Appeals were filed in this Court by Kenneth A. Riley and Donald W. Cushwa, hereinafter referred to as appellants, from separate judgments entered against them on March 26, 1974 in the Circuit Court of Berkeley County, wherein the Circuit Court found each of the appellants guilty of operating a motor carrier in West Virginia while the vehicle was not equipped with a West Virginia Public Service Commission identification card in the cab, in violation of Code, 24A--6--4, as amended. This Court granted appellant Riley's appeal on June 17, 1974 and on June 24, 1974 appellant Cushwa's appeal was granted. Subsequently, on September 5, 1974 the Court granted a joint motion for the consolidation of the cases by the parties. On April 29, 1975 the consolidated case was submitted for decision upon the briefs and oral arguments on behalf of the respective parties.
On November 10, 1973 the appellants, as employees of Spurgeon Trucking, Inc., were driving dump trucks owned by Spurgeon Trucking, Inc., a Maryland corporation which does business in West Virginia. The trucks the appellants were driving were stopped by an investigator for the Public Service Commission of West Virginia and the investigator asked the appellants to produce a uniform vehicle identification card required by Code, 24A--6--4, as amended. Neither of the appellants was able to produce the identification card and both drivers were subsequently arrested and taken before a justice of the peace whereupon they were found guilty of violating the statute. The appellants appealed their convictions to the Circuit Court of Berkeley County and each of them filed a motion to quash the warrants, contending the warrants failed to allege that the appellants were 'motor carriers', as required by the statute. Their motions to quash were denied, and on March 25, 1974 the appellants were tried by the Circuit Court without a jury and found guilty as charged and each of the appellants was fined $100 and costs.
It is the contention of the appellants that under the statute only Spurgeon Trucking Company can be prosecuted for violation of the statute. The statute in question, Code, 24A--6--4, as amended, reads as follows:
The commission shall prescribe a uniform vehicle identification card which shall be displayed within the cab of each power unit operated by any motor carrier, showing thereon the description and serial number of the vehicle for which it is issued and the number given to the vehicle by the commission, and may contain such other information as may be required by the commission. Such cards shall be issued annually and displayed in each such power unit not later than July first of each year. It shall be unlawful for any motor carrier to operate any power unit within this State unless said identification card is displayed within such vehicle. It shall be unlawful for the motor carrier, his agent, servant, or employee, or any other person to use or display said identification card or other insignia of authority from the commission at any time after the certificate or permit issued to said motor carrier has expired or has been cancelled, suspended, revoked, or otherwise disposed of....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Simpkins v. Harvey
...5, 245 S.E.2d 920 (1978), overruled on other grounds, State v. Myers, 171 W.Va. 277, 298 S.E.2d 813 (1982). See also State v. Riley, 158 W.Va. 823, 215 S.E.2d 460 (1975); State ex rel. Carson v. Wood, 154 W.Va. 397, 175 S.E.2d 482 (1970).9 A variety of sentencing alternatives are available ......
-
State v. Scott
......Murensky, 162 W.Va. 5, 245 S.E.2d 920 (1978) ("Ambiguous penal statutes must be strictly construed against the State and in favor of the defendant."); Syllabus Point 2, State v. Riley, 158 W.Va. 823, 215 S.E.2d 460 (1975) ("Penal statutes are strictly construed against the state and favorably for the defendant."). "It is a general rule that a penal statute will not be extended by construction, but must be limited to cases clearly within its language and spirit." Syllabus Point ......
-
State v. Ball
...the meaning of the statute. State v. Cole, W.Va., 238 S.E.2d 849 (1977).7 State v. Cole, W.Va., 238 S.E.2d 849 (1977); State v. Riley, W.Va., 215 S.E.2d 460 (1975); Dials v. Blair, 144 W.Va. 764, 111 S.E.2d 17 (1959); State v. Pyles, 86 W.Va. 636, 104 S.E. 100 (1920).8 It is the general rul......
-
Conley v. Dingess
...Our cases admonish that a criminal statute should be strictly construed. State v. Cole, W.Va., 238 S.E.2d 849 (1977); State v. Riley, W.Va., 215 S.E.2d 460 (1975); State ex rel. Carson v. Wood, 154 W.Va. 397, 175 S.E.2d 482 (1970); Dials v. Blair, 144 W.Va. 764, 111 S.E.2d 17 (1959); State ......