Title: State v. ME
Citation: 294 S.E.2d 171
Docket Number: 15310
State: west-virginia
Issuer: west-virginia Supreme Court
Date: July 8, 1982

294 S.E.2d 171 (1982) STATE of West Virginia v. M.E., Infant. No. 15310. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. July 8, 1982. *172 Robert S. Baker, Beckley, for appellant. Chauncey H. Browning, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Jerry Dove, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charleston, for appellee. PER CURIAM: M.E., a juvenile, appeals from a final order of the Circuit Court of Fayette County sentencing him to confinement in the West Virginia Industrial School for Boys (WVISB) for a period not to exceed one year. The only issue that need be addressed is whether the trial court made sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to satisfy the requirements of W.Va. Code, 49-5-1(d) and our case law. Because the trial court did not make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law, the judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further dispositional proceedings. This case is controlled by our pronouncements in State ex rel. R.S. v. Trent, W.Va., 289 S.E.2d 166 (1980) and State ex rel. D.D.H. v. Dostert, W.Va., 269 S.E.2d 401 (1980). In Syllabus Point 4 of D.D.H., this Court established the requirements that a trial court must satisfy upon deciding commitment to an industrial school is appropriate: In R.S. we reiterated the requirements of D.D.H., and stated in the second Syllabus Point: See also, State ex rel. B.S. v. Hill, W.Va., 294 S.E.2d 126 (1982). In the present case, the trial court did not comply with the requirements of R.S. and D.D.H. The court's order states only that M.E.'s parents were not able to take custody and supervise him as was necessary for his welfare; that a temporary commitment to foster care or to a group home would not rehabilitate him as shown by the court's knowledge of the juvenile's history and competent and credible testimony; and that the least restrictive alternative which would accomplish rehabilitation would be to place him in the custody of the Commissioner of Corrections for commitment to WVISB. Although it is not necessary for our decision in this case, we note that virtually all of the evidence presented in the dispositional proceedings below indicated incarceration was not the least restrictive dispositional alternative available for rehabilitating M.E. In particular, two psychologists for the WVISB recommended that M.E. be committed to a juvenile corrections facility, only if an adequate program of community rehabilitation could not be established. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Fayette County is reversed and the case is remanded for further dispositional proceedings. Reversed and remanded.