IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA January 2020 Term _______________ FILED June 8, 2020 No. 18-1132 released at 3:00 p.m. EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK _______________ SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Respondent v. CHRISTOPHER RUSSELL MILLS, Petitioner ____________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court of Mingo County The Honorable Miki J. Thompson, Judge Criminal Action No. 18-F-82 AFFIRMED ____________________________________________________________ Submitted: April 14, 2020 Filed: June 8, 2020 Matthew Brummond, Esq. Patrick Morrisey, Esq. Public Defender Services Attorney General Charleston, West Virginia Andrea Nease-Proper, Esq. Counsel for Petitioner Assistant Attorney General Charleston, West Virginia Counsel for Respondent CHIEF JUSTICE ARMSTEAD delivered the Opinion of the Court. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. “The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law which this Court reviews de novo.” Syllabus Point 1, State v. Rutherford, 223 W. Va. 1, 672 S.E.2d 137 (2008). 2. “In considering the constitutionality of a legislative enactment, courts must exercise due restraint, in recognition of the principle of the separation of powers in government among the judicial, legislative and executive branches. Every reasonable construction must be resorted to by the courts in order to sustain constitutionality, and any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of the legislative enactment in question. Courts are not concerned with questions relating to legislative policy. The general powers of the legislature, within constitutional limits, are almost plenary. In considering the constitutionality of an act of the legislature, the negation of legislative power must appear beyond reasonable doubt.” Syllabus Point 1, State ex rel. Appalachian Power Company v. Gainer, 149 W. Va. 740, 143 S.E.2d 351 (1965). 3. “This Court’s standard of review concerning a motion to dismiss an indictment is, generally, de novo. However, in addition to the de novo standard, where the circuit court conducts an evidentiary hearing upon the motion, this Court’s ‘clearly erroneous’ standard of review is invoked concerning the circuit court’s findings of fact.” Syllabus Point 1, State v. Grimes, 226 W. Va. 411, 701 S.E.2d 449 (2009). 4. “A criminal statute must be set out with sufficient definiteness to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is prohibited by i statute and to provide adequate standards for adjudication.” Syllabus Point 1, State v. Flinn, 158 W. Va. 111, 208 S.E.2d 538 (1974). 5. “There is no satisfactory formula to decide if a statute is so vague as to violate the due process clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions. The basic requirements are that such a statute must be couched in such language so as to notify a potential offender of a criminal provision as to what he should avoid doing in order to ascertain if he has violated the offense provided and it may be couched in general language.” Syllabus Point 1, State ex rel. Myers v. Wood, 154 W. Va. 431, 175 S.E.2d 637 (1970). 6. “A statutory provision which is clear and unambiguous and plainly expresses the legislative intent ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals