Court Opinion

ID: 9891324
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-18 12:12:21.67249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:00.428727
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                               October 18, 2023
                                                                               EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
                            STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA                             SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

                          SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS                                  OF WEST VIRGINIA

Jerry Lee Key,
Petitioner Below, Petitioner

vs.) No. 22-0496 (Kanawha County 21-P-335)

William K. Marshall III, Commissioner,
West Virginia Division of Corrections
and Rehabilitation,
Respondent Below, Respondent

                               MEMORANDUM DECISION

       Petitioner Jerry Lee Key appeals the Circuit Court of Kanawha County’s June 7, 2022,
order denying his petition for a writ of mandamus as moot. 1 Upon our review, finding no
substantial question of law and no prejudicial error, we determine that oral argument is
unnecessary and that a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court’s order is appropriate.
See W. Va. R. App. P. 21(c).

       Effective April 30, 2021, West Virginia Code § 15A-4-17 was amended to provide that

       [i]n addition to the good time granted under subsection (c) of this section and that
       authorized by subdivision (1) of this subsection, an eligible inmate serving a felony
       sentence may receive up to 90 days good time per program for successfully
       completing an approved, but not required, academic or vocational program, which
       is not part of the inmate’s required individualized reentry programing plan.

Id. § 15A-4-17(i)(2). The amended section provided further that “[t]he commissioner shall adopt
a written policy to effectuate the purposes of this subsection.” Id. In September 2021, petitioner
filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel respondent to adopt a written policy as
required by West Virginia Code § 15A-4-17(i)(2). During the pendency of that mandamus
proceeding, respondent did just that in Policy Directive 151.06, effective May 30, 2022.

       1
           Petitioner is a self-represented litigant. Respondent William K. Marshall III,
Commissioner, West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“DCR”) appears by
Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and Assistant Attorney General Jodi Tyler. Additionally,
petitioner identified Betsy Jividen as the commissioner of the DCR. As William K. Marshall III is
now the commissioner, the appropriate party has been substituted under Rule 41(c) of the West
Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure.
                                                1
Accordingly, the circuit court denied petitioner’s petition, finding that it had been rendered moot.
The court further concluded that while petitioner had established a clear legal right to the adoption
of the policy in question and a clear legal duty on respondent’s part to adopt that policy, he could
not establish a clear legal right or a legal duty on respondent’s part to adopt a written policy by a
certain date. See Syl. Pt. 2, State ex rel. Kucera v. City of Wheeling, 153 W. Va. 538, 170 S.E.2d
367 (1969) (“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.”). Petitioner
now appeals from the court’s June 7, 2022, order denying his petition, and our review is de novo.
Syl. Pt. 1, State v. Davis, 236 W. Va. 550, 782 S.E.2d 432 (2015).

        In his first of two assignments of error, petitioner argues that the court erred in denying his
petition without addressing his claim that respondent violated the Ex Post Facto clauses of the state
and federal constitutions because Policy Directive 151.06 was made effective more than a year
after the effective date of the amendments to West Virginia Code § 15A-4-17. First, the court did
address the issue in concluding that petitioner had no clear legal right to implementation of a policy
directive by a date certain, nor was there a legal duty on respondent’s part to make the policy
directive effective on a certain date. Indeed, the statute imposes no such requirement, so petitioner
cannot establish entitlement to mandamus relief on this ground. Second, petitioner has failed to
demonstrate that the policy directive violates ex post facto principles in any event. “Under Ex post
facto principles of the United States and West Virginia Constitutions, a law passed after the
commission of an offense which increases the punishment, lengthens the sentence or operates to
the detriment of the accused, cannot be applied to him.” Syl. Pt. 7, State ex rel. Phalen v. Roberts,
245 W. Va. 311, 858 S.E.2d 936 (2021) (quoting Syl. Pt. 1, Adkins v. Bordenkircher, 164 W. Va.
292, 262 S.E.2d 885 (1980)). The statue and corresponding policy directive, which provide for
additional means by which an inmate may receive good time credit, do not increase petitioner’s
punishment, lengthen his sentence, or operate to his detriment. Accordingly, petitioner has
demonstrated no error in the court’s conclusion below.

         In his second assignment of error, petitioner argues that the court failed to address his claim
that he is entitled to reimbursement of his filing fee because the filing of his petition was
necessitated by respondent’s alleged failure to adopt a written policy, as required by West Virginia
Code § 15A-4-17(i)(2). Although petitioner failed to include a copy of his petition for mandamus
relief in his appendix record, the documents that were included, such as respondent’s response and
petitioner’s reply to his mandamus petition, do not appear to reflect any request for reimbursement
of his filing fee. “[W]hen nonjurisdictional questions have not been decided at the trial court level
and are then first raised before this Court, they will not be considered on appeal.” Whitlow v. Bd.
of Educ. of Kanawha Cnty., 190 W. Va. 223, 226, 438 S.E.2d 15, 18 (1993) (citations omitted).
Moreover, costs and fees are awarded in mandamus proceedings “where a public officer willfully
fails to obey the law.” Syl. Pts. 3 & 4, in part, Nelson v. W. Va. Pub. Emps. Ins. Bd., 171 W. Va.
445, 300 S.E.2d 86 (1982). Petitioner has made no showing of a willful disobedience, so for this
additional reason, we decline to address his request for reimbursement of his filing fee. See State
v. Benny W., 242 W. Va. 618, 633, 837 S.E.2d 679, 694 (2019) (observing that “skeletal
argument[s]” do not preserve claims).

       For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

                                                   2
                                        Affirmed.

ISSUED: October 18, 2023

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Justice Elizabeth D. Walker
Justice Tim Armstead
Justice John A. Hutchison
Justice William R. Wooton
Justice C. Haley Bunn

                                    3