Opinion ID: 1411771
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Application of Choma v. West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles

Text: During the period in which the stays in the cases sub judice were pending, this Court decided Choma. In that opinion, this Court spoke directly to the question of prospective application in footnote four, as follows: Our ruling is prospective only. 210 W.Va. at 260 n. 4, 557 S.E.2d at 314 n. 4. Our evaluation of the present cases is therefore guided by that explicit statement in Choma. A question remains, however, regarding whether the Choma decision is to be applied, prospectively, to cases in which final determinations were yet to be made by November 28, 2001, the date of Choma's filing. In other words, a bare statement in Choma that the decision is to be applied prospectively, without accompanying explanation, leaves open the question of whether the principles announced in the opinion are to be applied (1) only to factual scenarios which have not yet arisen, i.e., acts which have not yet been performed; (2) are also to be applied where no initial administrative determination by the commissioner has been made; or (3) are also to be applied where an initial determination has been made, with an appeal pending to a circuit court. In the cases before this Court, for instance, the initial commissioner's determinations had been made prior to the Choma decision, but appeals were pending, and final determinations of the Appellees' cases had not been made prior to the decision in Choma. In examining the Court's intent in its use of the term prospective in Choma, it is obvious that the Choma Court did not intend a purely prospective application since the Choma Court did indeed apply the newly announced law to the party in question in Choma. A purely prospective application is one which does not even apply the newly pronounced law to the parties to the case which resulted in the new law, as clearly explained in Ketchup v. Howard, 247 Ga.App. 54, 543 S.E.2d 371 (2000). In Ketchup, the Georgia court stated that a purely prospective application of the principles announced herein was being adopted and concluded as follows: Consequently, the prospective application of this ruling will not affect the instant case. 543 S.E.2d at 379. Likewise, in Prescott v. PNC Bank Corp., 332 N.J.Super. 530, 753 A.2d 1222 (2000), the New Jersey court struggled with the disorderliness of the prospective/retroactive issue and observed as follows: [W]here the Court believes that a purely prospective application of a new rule of law is unfair to the successful litigant, and applies the new rule to the parties, or perhaps the parties and other limited litigants, the choice is called limited prospectivity, an identical concept to selective prospectivity. 753 A.2d at 1225 (citations omitted). The creation of a new rule of law by the Supreme Court requires the Court to address the perplexing doctrine of retroactivity. Essentially, the Court has four choices. It may: (1) make the new rule of law purely prospective, applying it only to cases whose operative facts arise after the new rule is announced; (2) apply the new rule to future cases and to the parties in the case announcing the new rule, while applying the old rule to all other pending and past litigation; (3) grant the new rule limited retroactivity, applying it to cases in (1) and (2) as well as to pending cases where the parties have not yet exhausted all avenues of direct review; and, finally, (4) give the new rule complete retroactive effect, applying it to all cases, even those where final judgments have been entered and all avenues of direct review exhausted. Id. at 1224 (citations omitted). The New Jersey court in Prescott continued by observing that [a]s generally understood, when the new rule of law is to be applied on a `purely prospective' basis the court refuses to apply the new rule `not only to the parties before the court but also to any case where the relevant facts predate the decision.' Id. at 1225 (citations omitted). On the other hand, where the court applies the new `rule to some but not all cases where the operative events occurred before the court's decision, depending on the equities' the option is called `selective prospectivity.' Id. at 1225 (citations omitted). The precedent of this Court, while illustrative, does not provide us with an unequivocal answer to the question of prospectivity posed in these consolidated appeals. [4] In syllabus point five of Bradley v. Appalachian Power Co., 163 W.Va. 332, 256 S.E.2d 879 (1979), this Court outlined the formula for an initial determination of whether a decision should be considered retroactive or prospective, as follows: In determining whether to extend full retroactivity, the following factors are to be considered: First, the nature of the substantive issue overruled must be determined. If the issue involves a traditionally settled area of law, such as contracts or property as distinguished from torts, and the new rule was not clearly foreshadowed, then retroactivity is less justified. Second, where the overruled decision deals with procedural law rather than substantive, retroactivity ordinarily will be more readily accorded. Third, common law decisions, when overruled, may result in the overruling decision being given retroactive effect, since the substantive issue usually has a narrower impact and is likely to involve fewer parties. Fourth, where, on the other hand, substantial public policy issues are involved, arising from statutory or constitutional interpretations that represent a clear departure from prior precedent, prospective application will ordinarily be favored. Fifth, the more radically the new decision departs from previous substantive law, the greater the need for limiting retroactivity. Finally, this Court will also look to the precedent of other courts which have determined the retroactive/prospective question in the same area of the law in their overruling decisions. The Bradley formula does not give specific guidance to our current situation, in which the decision regarding prospectivity was specified within the Choma decision and application of that prospectivity ruling is now at issue. We acknowledged in Kincaid v. Mangum, 189 W.Va. 404, 432 S.E.2d 74 (1993), that we continue to recognize that there is no one rule which will answer questions regarding the issue of retroactivity in every case.... 189 W. Va. at 416, 432 S.E.2d at 86. Where an opinion does include a specific reference to retroactive or prospective application, such opinion often specifies a time period within which the newly announced rules should be applied. For instance, in State ex rel. Mitchem v. Kirkpatrick, 199 W.Va. 501, 485 S.E.2d 445 (1997), this Court concluded that our prior decision in State ex rel. Riffle v. Ranson, 195 W.Va. 121, 464 S.E.2d 763 (1995), abrogating the doctrine of forum non conveniens, would be applied prospectively to cases transferred without an appeal. Mitchem, 199 W.Va. at 505, 485 S.E.2d at 449. In explaining its prospectivity ruling, the Mitchem Court specified as follows: Prospective application means that cases, which were transferred under the doctrine of forum non-conveniens after October 27, 1995, the date Riffle was filed, should request the circuit court to reconsider the transfer in light of our decision in Riffle. Unless extraordinary relief was sought, cases which were transferred under the doctrine of forum non-conveniens before October 27, 1995, are not entitled to any relief under Riffle. Id. at 505-06, 485 S.E.2d at 449-50. In footnote three of Mitchem, the Court further spelled out its precise intent, as follows: We are unaware of any petitions pending before this Court concerning transfers made under the now abrogated doctrine of forum non-conveniens. However, if such a petition is pending, our decision today would not automatically reject a consideration of the petition. Id. at 506 n. 3, 485 S.E.2d at 450 n. 3. Similarly, in LaRue v. LaRue, 172 W.Va. 158, 304 S.E.2d 312 (1983), overruled on other grounds by Butcher v. Butcher, 178 W.Va. 33, 357 S.E.2d 226 (1987), this Court announced a prospectivity ruling and then provided a clarification of situations in which the new rule would apply. In syllabus point fourteen, this Court stated: Equitable distribution based on homemaker services should be applied prospectively, that is, only to those cases filed after the date of this opinion. Since we have applied the homemaker principles to the present case, we will extend these principles to those cases presently on appeal to this Court where an equitable distribution claim for homemaker services has actually been presented in the lower court. Another example of the prospectivity issue being conformed to specific perceived equitable needs is found in Belcher v. Goins, 184 W.Va. 395, 400 S.E.2d 830 (1990). In that case, this Court addressed the Bradley factors and ruled that parental consortium claims could be maintained in specified instances where facts had arisen prior to Belcher's alteration of a claimant's rights. Specifically, the Belcher court explained: However, to prevent stale claims, a parental consortium claim may not in any event be maintained if the parent was injured more than two years prior to this opinion. Furthermore, to accommodate the usual requirement that a parental consortium claim be joined with the parent's action for physical injuries, a parental consortium action must be brought no later than thirty days after this opinion is filed, where the parent's action was brought prior to this opinion for injuries which were inflicted no more than two years prior to this opinion. 184 W.Va. at 408, 400 S.E.2d at 843. In State v. Nichols, 208 W.Va. 432, 541 S.E.2d 310 (1999), this Court addressed the issue of the evidence necessary to establish a defendant's previous conviction and authorized bifurcation or stipulation in recidivist DUI prosecutions to avoid possible unfair prejudice from telling jurors about previous DUI offenses, overruling a prior case. In footnote twenty-four of Nichols, this Court addressed the prospectivity issue applicable in the criminal context and specified as follows: While our holding today is applicable to any retrial of Mr. Nichols, our decision has no retroactive application and cannot be used or relied upon by a defendant convicted and sentenced before the filing date of this opinion. [A] judicial decision in a criminal case is to be given prospective application only if: (a) It established a new principle of law; (b) its retroactive application would retard its operation; and (c) its retroactive application would produce inequitable results. Syl. pt. 5, in part, State v. Blake, 197 W.Va. 700, 478 S.E.2d 550 (1996). 208 W.Va. at 445 n. 24, 541 S.E.2d at 323 n. 24. Thus, relying upon Nichols, this Court in State v. Davisson, 209 W.Va. 303, 547 S.E.2d 241 (2001), held that the defendant in Nichols was not entitled to retroactive application of Nichols  even though the defendant's case was on appeal when Nichols was filed. 209 W.Va. at 309, 547 S.E.2d at 247; see also Dalton v. Doe, 208 W.Va. 319, 540 S.E.2d 536 (2000) (holding that prior decision, overruling requirement of physical contact in order to recover uninsured motorist benefits and failing to specify prospectivity or retroactivity, applied only prospectively and did not apply to accident occurring prior to decision); Ashley v. Bellew, 190 W.Va. 600, 439 S.E.2d 465 (1993) (holding that Kanawha County Correctional Officers Civil Service Commission had erred in relying on case decided after occurrence of events in controversy). [5] An extensive explanation of the Court's intent was also included in the opinion in State ex. rel . Eads v. Duncil, 196 W.Va. 604, 474 S.E.2d 534 (1996), wherein this Court specified: We specifically decline to make this decision retroactive as to any revocation made before the order before us. As to orders made since that time until our order today is effective, no person incarcerated pursuant to such order shall be subject to release solely by reason of our order today. As to any such cases in which a majority of the Parole Board has both considered the record of the revocation proceeding and concurred with the decision, the member of the Parole Board so considering and concurring in such decision shall forthwith file with the secretary of the Parole Board a written concurrence, and the secretary of the Parole Board shall prepare and certify an order in the nature of a nunc pro tunc and furnish and deliver copies thereof to those entitled to copies of the original order. In cases in which a majority of the Parole Board has not considered the record and concurred in the decision heretofore rendered, the Parole Board shall either proceed to reconsider the record, if available, and issue a new order revoking parole or setting aside the order of revocation or convene a new hearing, the record of which shall be considered and acted upon in the manner consistent with this opinion. A person shall be entitled to release only upon the entry of an order of the Parole Board setting aside its prior revocation order and upon the terms and conditions set forth in such order. 196 W.Va. at 612, 474 S.E.2d at 542. An examination of the issue of the definition and application of the term prospective by other jurisdictions is also beneficial. In Gallik v. County of Lake, 335 Ill.App.3d 325, 269 Ill.Dec. 725, 781 N.E.2d 522 (2002), the Illinois court explored the issue of prospectiveness and concluded: Prospective application means that, on the date of filing, the new rule will affect pending cases and all cases brought after the date of filing. 269 Ill.Dec. 725, 781 N.E.2d at 527; see also People ex rel. Klaeren v. Village of Lisle, 352 Ill.App.3d 831, 288 Ill.Dec. 22, 817 N.E.2d 147 (2004). [6] In State v. Swainston, 139 Ariz. 95, 676 P.2d 1153 (App.1984), the Arizona court explained its prospectivity ruling as follows: While this appeal was pending, the Arizona Supreme Court issued its opinion in State v. Fettis, 136 Ariz. 58, 664 P.2d 208 (1983), holding that in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, a sentence may not be imposed on a convicted defendant in absentia. The court further held that its decision should have prospective application only. Although the Arizona cases construing the meaning of prospective application have produced inconsistent results, the supreme court has recently indicated that prospective application means that a decision applies to cases on appeal on the date the decision is rendered as well as to cases tried after that date. State v. Nunez, 135 Ariz. 257, 660 P.2d 858 (1983). 676 P.2d at 1154 (emphasis supplied). Likewise, in State v. LeMaster, 137 Ariz. 159, 669 P.2d 592 (App.1983), the Arizona court recognized that it has indicated that prospective application of a decision means that a decision applies to cases tried after the date of filing as well as to cases pending on appeal as of that date. 669 P.2d at 601. The court noted that such interpretation is consistent with the general rule that when there is a change of law by judicial decision between the time of trial and the time of appeal the appellate court will apply the law prevailing at the time of the appellate disposition. Id. (citations omitted); see also State v. Hanson, 151 Wash.2d 783, 91 P.3d 888, 892 (2004) (examining prior opinion and holding that it applies prospectively to include cases not yet final when the ... decision was decided). The United States Supreme Court has also grappled with these issues of prospective application of newly announced principles. See United States v. Johnson, 457 U.S. 537, 562, 102 S.Ct. 2579, 73 L.Ed.2d 202 (1982) (Broadening Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 85 S.Ct. 1731, 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965) and holding that, subject to certain exceptions, a decision of this Court construing the Fourth Amendment is to be applied retroactively to all convictions that were not yet final at the time the decision was rendered). In Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 107 S.Ct. 708, 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987), the United Stated Supreme Court held that a new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions is to be applied retroactively to all cases, state or federal, pending on direct review or not yet final, with no exception for cases in which the new rule constitutes a `clear break' with the past. 479 U.S. at 328, 107 S.Ct. 708. Subsequent to the Griffith decision, the United States Supreme Court decided Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989), finding that [r]etroactivity is properly treated as a threshold question because once a new constitutional rule of criminal procedure is applied to the defendant in the case announcing the rule, evenhanded justice requires that it be applied retroactively to all who are similarly situated. 489 U.S. at 300, 109 S.Ct. 1060. In Teague, the Court distinguished between cases pending on direct review and cases pending on collateral review. Id. at 301, 109 S.Ct. 1060. These rules of application have been explicitly extended to civil cases. In James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia, 501 U.S. 529, 111 S.Ct. 2439, 115 L.Ed.2d 481 (1991), a majority of Justices agreed that a rule of federal law, having been announced and applied to the parties to the controversy, must be given full retroactive effect by all courts adjudicating federal law. 501 U.S. at 540, 111 S.Ct. 2439. The Court stated that the equality principle, that similarly situated litigants should be treated the same, carried comparable force in the civil context. Id. In Harper v. Virginia Dep't of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86, 113 S.Ct. 2510, 125 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993), the Court expanded the Beam pronouncements as follows: When this Court applies a rule of federal law to the parties before it, that rule is the controlling interpretation of federal law and must be given full retroactive effect in all cases still open on direct review and as to all events, regardless of whether such events predate or postdate our announcement of the rule. This rule extends Griffith's ban against selective application of new rules. 479 U.S., at 323[, 107 S.Ct. 708]. Mindful of the basic norms of constitutional adjudication that animated our view of retroactivity in the criminal context, id., at 322[, 107 S.Ct. 708], we now prohibit the erection of selective temporal barriers to the application of federal law in non-criminal cases. In both civil and criminal cases, we can scarcely permit the substantive law [to] shift and spring according to the particular equities of [individual parties'] claims of actual reliance on an old rule and of harm from a retroactive application of the new rule. Beam, supra, at 543 [111 S.Ct. 2439] (opinion of Souter, J.). Our approach to retroactivity heeds the admonition that [t]he Court has no more constitutional authority in civil cases than in criminal cases to disregard current law or to treat similarly situated litigants differently. 509 U.S. at 97, 113 S.Ct. 2510 (citations omitted). In the cases sub judice, this Court has the opportunity to clarify the prospectivity statement in Choma. Based upon the foregoing analysis, we conclude that prospectivity, within the context of the responsibilities imposed upon the commissioner by Choma, permits the Choma decision to be applied in any judicial determination of administrative license revocation made after the date of Choma 's filing, November 28, 2001. This would include a case in which the operative facts occurred prior to November 28, 2001, where (1) the commissioner had not yet rendered a decision; or (2) a direct appeal of that decision is pending. We predicate our holding upon our conclusion that this Court's use of the term prospective in Choma indicated an intent to apply the requirements enunciated in that opinion to all cases in which administrative license revocation determinations had not been finalized at the time of Choma 's issuance, November 28, 2001. Further, we believe that our resolution of this matter is in accord with the factors identified in Bradley. No substantive issue was significantly altered or overruled by Choma; an additional consideration for the commissioner was simply added. This additional requirement is of narrow impact and affects few parties. It in no manner demonstrates a dramatic departure from prior case law and does not impinge any party's previously vested rights. Since Choma requires the commissioner only to give consideration to the results of any criminal prosecution, we believe this resolution of the matter is fair to all parties. Because the Appellees' cases were pending when this Court issued Choma, Choma is applicable to final resolution of their cases. We consequently affirm the decision of the lower court and permit remand to the DMV Commissioner, as ordered by the lower court, for reevaluation of the Appellees' cases and the entry of an order decided in accordance with the requirements of Choma. We further direct, as emphasized above, that stays granted to administrative DUI license revocation proceedings must be properly limited. The commissioner should promptly file and bring on for hearing appropriate motions in every case where an open-ended stay is in effect, and the circuit courts should promptly hear and determine the issues pending in such appeals. Moreover, all stays issued hereafter must respect the legislative limitation of 150 days. Affirmed.