STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
 

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA EX REL. 

WEST VIRGINIA REGIONAL JAIL AND 

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY AUTHORITY, FILED 

Petitioner September 15, 2016 

released at 3:00 p.m. 

RORY L. PERRY, II CLERK vs.) No. 15-1021 SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

COUNTY COMMISSION OF WEBSTER COUNTY,
 

DANIEL B. DOTSON, PRESIDENT,
 

JERRY F. HAMRICK, VICE PRESIDENT, AND
 

ANNA CARPENTER, COMMISSIONER,
 

Respondents
 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

This is a writ of mandamus proceeding filed under the original jurisdiction of 

this Court by Petitioner, West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority 

(hereinafter “Regional Jail”), through counsel, Leah Macia, General Counsel, and Stephen 

R. Connolly, Deputy Attorney General. The Regional Jail seeks to have this Court compel 

the Respondents, County Commission of Webster County and its three elected officials 

(hereinafter collectively “the Commission”),1 pay accrued money owed to the Regional Jail 

for services provided to inmates from Webster County. 

This Court has considered the parties’ briefs, the appendix submitted, and the 

parties’ oral arguments. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the Court grants the 

writ of mandamus as moulded. In view of prior precedent on the dispositive issue presented 

in this case, a memorandum decision is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. 

1

The three county commissioners named were Daniel B. Dotson, Jerry F. Hamrick, 

and Anna Carpenter. 

1
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I.
 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
 

The Regional Jail was created through legislation known as the West Virginia 

Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority Act. See W. Va. Code § 31-20-1 et seq. 

(1989). Pursuant to the Act, the Legislature authorized the development of regional jails in 

order “[t]o provide a cost-efficient system within this state for the construction, maintenance 

and operation of adult jails and correctional facilities.” W. Va. Code § 31-20-1a(b)(1) (1998) 

(Repl. Vol. 2015). Under the Act, the operational costs for the regional jail system are paid 

by the entities that place inmates in the facilities. See W. Va. Code § 31-20-10a (2004) 

(Repl. Vol. 2015). 

In this proceeding, the Regional Jail has asserted that the Commission owes 

it $1.31 million dollars for services provided to inmates from Webster County, and that the 

Commission has failed to make payments on the debt. The Commission has admitted that 

it owes the Regional Jail $1.31 million dollars.2 The Regional Jail also indicated that the 

amount owed continues to increase at an estimated amount of $40,000 per month. In an 

effort to collect the money owed by the Commission, the Regional Jail alleges that it has held 

discussions with the Commission and other county officials, and attempted to bill the 

Commission on a monthly basis. The Regional Jail has asserted that all of its efforts to get 

the Commission to pay the debt have failed. Consequently, the Regional Jail now asks this 

Court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the Commission to pay the debt. 

II.
 

DISCUSSION
 

We have held that “[s]ince mandamus is an ‘extraordinary’ remedy, it should 

be invoked sparingly.” State ex rel. Billings v. City of Point Pleasant, 194 W. Va. 301, 303, 

460 S.E.2d 436, 438 (1995) (footnote omitted). The traditional test for granting mandamus 

relief has been stated as follows: 

A writ of mandamus will not issue unless three elements 

coexist–(1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the relief 

sought; (2) a legal duty on the part of respondent to do the thing 

which the petitioner seeks to compel; and (3) the absence of 

another adequate remedy. 

2

The Regional Jail indicated that the Commission has not paid on the debt since mid2012. The Commission disputes this point, but does not challenge the amount owed. 

2
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Syl. pt. 2, State ex rel. Kucera v. City of Wheeling, 153 W. Va. 538, 170 S.E.2d 367 (1969). 

See Syl. pt. 2, State ex rel. Cooke v. Jarrell, 154 W. Va. 542, 177 S.E.2d 214 (1970) (“To 

entitle one to a writ of mandamus, the party seeking the writ must show a clear legal right 

thereto and a corresponding duty on the respondent to perform the act demanded.”). As 

shown below, the Regional Jail has satisfied the requirements for obtaining the writ. 

It was previously noted that the Commission does not dispute the fact that it 

owes the Regional Jail $1.31 million dollars for services rendered to inmates from Webster 

County, and that the debt continues to grow at an estimated amount of $40,000 per month. 

The Commission also concedes it has a statutory duty to pay the Regional Jail the debt owed. 

The statutory duty is found in W. Va. Code § 31-20-10(h) (2010) (Repl. Vol. 2015). This 

statute provides in relevant part: 

When inmates are placed in a regional jail facility . . . , 

the county shall pay into the Regional Jail and Correctional 

Facility Authority Fund a cost per day for each incarcerated 

inmate to be determined by the Regional Jail and Correctional 

Facility Authority[.] 

See also W. Va. Code § 31-20-10a(c) (“The county is responsible for costs incurred by the 

Authority for housing and maintaining inmates in its facilities who have not been committed 

to the custody of the Commissioner of Corrections”). 

The Commission argues that it should not be required to pay the debt it owes 

the Regional Jail. Some of the reasons cited by the Commission include: it experienced an 

increase in drug prosecutions from 2013-2014; from 2010-2015 its coal severance monies 

were reduced in half; real property is being taxed at the maximum allowable rate; it has spent 

its “rainy day” reserve fund; it reduced its budget; it imposed a hiring freeze; employee 

benefits have been cut; it no longer funds many community programs and services; tax 

assessment, tax collection, county police services, and prosecution will become practically 

non-existent; the Regional Jail has a surplus of $58,482,000;3 and the Regional Jail “spends 

money on unnecessary programs such as computer kiosks for inmate video conferencing.” 

3

We note in passing that the Legislature has provided a statutory mechanism for 

dealing with excess funds held by the Regional Jail. See W. Va. Code § 31-20-10(d) (2010) 

(Repl. Vol. 2015) (“If the authority determines that moneys held in these funds are in excess 

of the amount needed to carry out the purposes of this article, it shall take any action that is 

necessary to release the excess and transfer it to the General Revenue Fund of the State 

Treasury.”). 

3
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Based upon these reasons, the Commission contends that the application of W. Va. Code § 

31-20-10(h) to the facts of its circumstances is unconstitutional. We disagree. 

The issue of an unconstitutional application of a statute to a specific set of facts 

is not new to this Court. See City of Wheeling v. Natural Gas Co. of W. Va., 74 W. Va. 372, 

385, 82 S.E. 345, 351 (1914) (“[I]t has been many times decided that though a statute may 

be lawful as applied to some person it may nevertheless be rendered invalid in its application 

to others, if its enforcement would deprive them of legal and constitutional rights.” (citation 

omitted)). “This Court has repeatedly held that a statute may be constitutional on its face but 

may be applied in an unconstitutional manner.” State ex rel. Haden v. Calco Awning & 

Window Corp., 153 W. Va. 524, 530, 170 S.E.2d 362, 366 (1969). See Lewis v. Canaan 

Valley Resorts, Inc., 185 W. Va. 684, 691, 408 S.E.2d 634, 641 (1991) (“[A] statute may be 

constitutional on its face but may be applied in an unconstitutional manner.”); Syl. pt. 12, 

Farley v. Graney, 146 W. Va. 22, 119 S.E.2d 833 (1960) (“An act of the legislature may be 

valid in its general scope and broad outline but invalid to the extent that the restrictions 

imposed thereby are clearly arbitrary and unreasonable in their application to specific 

property.”); Syl. pt. 8, Coal & Coke Ry. Co. v. Conley, 67 W. Va. 129, 67 S.E. 613 (1910) 

(“It is no objection to the remedy in such case, that the statute, the application of which in 

the particular case is sought to be prevented, is not void on its face, but is complained of only 

because its operation in the particular instance works a violation of a constitutional right.”). 

In Syllabus point 6 of Kolvek v. Napple, 158 W. Va. 568, 212 S.E.2d 614 (1975), we 

succinctly held: “A statute may be valid on its face but unconstitutionally applied. The 

unconstitutional application of the statute may be prohibited and the statute allowed to 

stand.” 

In the instant case, the Commission has failed to show how W. Va. Code 

§ 31-20-10(h) is arbitrary or capricious in its application to the facts of this case. Indeed, the 

facts of this case show only that the Commission has arbitrarily chosen not to make payments 

on the debt it owes the Regional Jail. Although we recognize the Commission may have 

encountered an unexpected loss in revenue from the coal industry, this situation is a statewide problem that is not peculiar to the Commission. Moreover, this Court does not have 

authority to decide what bills government entities can avoid paying, in times of financial belt 

tightening, because of revenue shortage from the coal industry. The issues raised by the 

Commission in this regard are matters for the Legislature to consider and resolve. Our duty 

is to apply the law, not reinvent it in order to allow a party to avoid payment of a debt. 

The Regional Jail has argued that under our decision in State ex rel. Regional 

Jail & Correctional Facility Authority v. County Commission of Cabell County, 222 W. Va. 

1, 657 S.E.2d 176 (2007), it is entitled to the requested writ. We agree. 

4
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One of the issues presented in Cabell County involved a request by the 

Regional Jail to have this Court, require the County Commission of Cabell County pay the 

debt it owed the Regional Jail for housing its prisoners.4 At the time that the proceeding was 

filed with this Court the county owed the Regional Jail $1.5 million dollars for fiscal year 

2005.5 We determined that under W. Va. Code § 31-20-10 and § 31-20-10a(c) the county 

had a mandatory duty to pay the debt owed to the Regional Jail. We addressed the matter as 

follows: 

Given this Court’s duty to uphold the laws of this state 

which includes the enactments of our Legislature, we are 

similarly constrained to recognize the mandatory language 

directing that the counties “shall pay” for the “costs of operating 

the regional jail facilities of this state to maintain each inmate” 

as well as the statutory language that imposes responsibility on 

the counties for “costs incurred by the Authority for housing and 

maintaining inmates in its facilities.” W. Va. Code §§ 31-20­

10(h); 31-20-10a(c). . . . Accordingly, we conclude that the 

statutory provision imposing mandatory payment obligations on 

the Commission for inmates housed in the regional jail is clearly 

subject to enforcement. Furthermore, the trial court was without 

the authority to reduce the amount of assessments made by the 

Authority. . . . Accordingly, the Commission is required by 

statute to remit payment to the Authority for those amounts 

assessed for per diem payments in connection with fiscal year 

2005. Insofar as the trial court improperly reduced the per diem 

rate pursuant to which the Commission was obligated to pay the 

Authority for fiscal year 2005, the Commission remains 

responsible for the amounts as originally assessed for such 

period. 

4

The case was filed as a petition for a writ of mandamus under the original jurisdiction 

of this Court. We issued a rule to show cause returnable to the Circuit Court of Cabell 

County for the development of an evidentiary record. The circuit court entered an order 

partially granting the Regional Jail the relief requested. In doing so, the circuit court 

drastically reduced the amount of money the Regional Jail was seeking. The Regional Jail 

appealed that partial judgment. 

5

While the case was pending before this Court, the county paid some of the debt and 

reduced it to $457,355.00. 

5
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cabell County, 222 W. Va. at 13, 657 S.E.2d at 188. 

The decision in Cabell County is binding precedent on the resolution of the 

instant case. See Scott v. Virginian Ry. Co., 117 W. Va. 180, 187, 184 S.E. 559, 562 (1936) 

(“We are of the opinion that the case of Pedersen v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., . . . was 

decided upon facts essentially analogous to the facts before us, and that it constitutes a 

binding precedent for the decision of this case.”). See also State ex rel. Farley v. Cummings, 

No. 12-0159, 2012 WL 3155730, at *2 (W.Va. May 9, 2012) (memorandum decision) (“The 

holding in Hunter, supra, is binding precedent in this action. The writs of prohibition and 

mandamus filed by the petitioners herein are granted.”). Insofar as “there is a complete lack 

of proof that [W. Va. Code § 31-20-10] is being applied in an unreasonable, arbitrary or 

capricious manner; . . . the statute . . . is constitutional.” State ex rel. Haden v. Calco Awning 

& Window Corp., 153 W. Va. 524, 531, 170 S.E.2d 362, 366 (1969). Accordingly, we find 

that under our precedent the Commission must pay the debt owed to the Regional Jail. 

III.
 

CONCLUSION
 

In view of the foregoing, we find that the Regional Jail is entitled to the writ, 

as moulded. Therefore, we hold that the Commission must pay the debt of approximately 

$1.31 million dollars it owed to the Regional Jail at the time that this proceeding was filed, 

in addition to payment of the debt that accrued while this case was pending. We further 

require the Regional Jail to work out a payment plan with the Commission that allows the 

Commission to pay the past debt in installments over the course of a reasonable period of 

time.6 

6

The Regional Jail also has indicated in its brief that it contacted the state Tax 

Commissioner and requested tax payments due to Webster County be withheld. See W. Va. 

Code § 14-1-37(h) (2010) (Repl. Vol. 2014) (“The auditor and the chief administrators of the 

various state agencies are authorized by this section to enter into interagency agreements for 

the purpose of . . . collecting debts, fees and penalties due the state, its departments, agencies 

or institutions.”). The Regional Jail has asked this Court to order the Tax Commissioner to 

give it the tax monies it is holding for Webster County. We decline to grant such relief 

because the Tax Commissioner is not a party to this litigation. See State v. Felty, 109 W. Va. 

384, 390-91, 155 S.E. 122, 124 (1930) (“Under our decisions, which have been uniform, the 

merits of a case should never be adjudicated in the absence of necessary parties.”); Syl. pt. 

2, in part, United Fuel Gas Co. v. Morley Oil & Gas Co., 101 W. Va. 73, 131 S.E. 713 (1926) 

(“The merits of a cause should never be adjudicated in the absence of necessary parties.”). 

6
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Writ granted as moulded. 

ISSUED: September 15, 2016 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Chief Justice Menis E. Ketchum 

Justice Robin Jean Davis 

Justice Brent D. Benjamin 

Justice Margaret L. Workman 

Justice Allen H. Loughry II 

During oral argument the Regional Jail stated that it was no longer seeking tax payments 

from the Tax Commissioner. 

7