State of WV ex rel. Bosley v. Willet, Mag.
Annotate this CaseJanuary 1999 Term
__________
No. 25476
__________
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA EX REL. MICHAEL SHAY BOSLEY,
Petitioner
v.
MARGARET M. WILLET,
MAGISTRATE FOR HARRISON COUNTY, AND
EDMUND J. MATKO,
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY FOR HARRISON COUNTY,
Respondents
__________________________________________________________________
Petition for Writ of Prohibition and Writ of Mandamus
WRITS DENIED
__________________________________________________________________
Submitted: February 16, 1999
Filed: May 19, 1999
Dreama D. Sinkkanen,
Esq.
Darrell V.
McGraw, Jr., Esq.
Public Defender
Corporation
Attorney General
Clarksburg, West
Virginia
Scott
E. Johnson, Esq.
Attorney for
Petitioner
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Kristine
M. Howard, Esq.
Assistant
Attorney General
Charleston,
West Virginia
Attorneys
for Respondents
The Opinion of the Court was delivered PER CURIAM.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
1. "
Prohibition lies only to restrain inferior courts from proceeding in causes over which
they have no jurisdiction, or, in which, having jurisdiction, they are exceeding their
legitimate powers and may not be used as a substitute for [a petition for appeal] or
certiorari." Syllabus Point 1, Crawford v. Taylor, 138 W.Va. 207, 75 S.E.2d 370 (1953).
2. "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." Syllabus Point 2, State ex rel. Kucera v. City of Wheeling, 153 W.Va.
538, 170 S.E.2d 367 (1969).
Per Curiam:
This case is before this
Court upon a petition for a writ of prohibition and a writ of mandamus filed by the
petitioner, Michael Shay Bosley, against the respondents, Margaret M. Willet, Magistrate
for Harrison County, and Edmund J. Matko, Prosecuting Attorney for Harrison County. The
petitioner seeks to prohibit the State from prosecuting him for driving under the
influence (hereinafter "DUI") and driving on a license suspended for a previous
DUI. He contends that pursuant to Rule 8(a)(2) of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal
Procedure, the State was required to join these charges with two hunting citations he
received on the same night. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus requiring
Magistrate Willet to dismiss the charges against him for the same reason. This Court has
before it the petition for a writ of prohibition and a writ of mandamus, the response
thereto, and the argument of counsel. For the reasons set forth below, the writs are
denied.
I.
On November 1, 1997, the
petitioner was stopped in Harrison County and issued a citation for hunting violations by
Department of Natural Resources Officer Matthew Barkley. Specifically, the petitioner was
cited for possession of an uncased gun in a vehicle and hunting from sunset to sunrise in
violation of W.Va. Code § 20-2-5(10) (1997). While issuing the citation to the
petitioner, Officer Barkley noticed the smell of alcohol. Suspecting that the petitioner
was intoxicated, Officer Barkley requested a state trooper to come to the scene. Trooper
Reginald Patterson responded to the call.
Upon arrival, Trooper
Patterson spoke with the petitioner who admitted he had been drinking beer. The petitioner
also stated that he had been driving, and he agreed to submit to three field sobriety
tests. After the petitioner failed all three tests, Trooper Patterson advised him that he
was under arrest for DUI. The petitioner was transported to the police station where he
took a breathalyser test. His blood alcohol content registered .109. Upon further
investigation, Trooper Patterson learned that the petitioner's driver's license had been
revoked. Consequently, the petitioner was also charged with driving on a license suspended
for a previous DUI. Later that night, the petitioner was arraigned on the DUI charges and
released on bond.
On November 5, 1997, the
petitioner appeared before a magistrate in Harrison County, pled guilty to the hunting
offenses, and paid a fine. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the DUI
charges because the State had not joined them with the hunting offenses pursuant to Rule
8(a)(2) of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure. This motion was denied by
Magistrate James K. Terrango.See footnote 1 1
The petitioner then filed a writ of prohibition with the Circuit Court of Harrison
County which was also denied. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition for a writ of
prohibition and a writ of mandamus with this Court.
II.
The general rule with
respect to the propriety of the extraordinary remedy of prohibition is set forth in
Syllabus Point 1 of Crawford v. Taylor, 138 W.Va. 207, 75 S.E.2d 370 (1953): "
Prohibition lies only to restrain inferior courts from proceeding in causes over which
they have no jurisdiction, or, in which, having jurisdiction, they are exceeding their
legitimate powers and may not be used as a substitute for [a petition for appeal] or
certiorari." See also W.Va. Code § 53-1-1 (1923). A writ of mandamus, like
a writ of prohibition, is used only in extraordinary situations. In Syllabus Point 2 of State
ex rel. Kucera v. City of Wheeling, 153 W.Va. 538, 170 S.E.2d 367 (1969), we held
that: "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." See also Syllabus Point 1, Smith v. West Virginia
State Bd. of Educ., 170 W.Va. 593, 295 S.E.2d 680 (1982).
In this case, the
petitioner contends that DUI charges must be dismissed because the State failed to comply
with Rule 8(a)(2) of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure.See footnote 2 2 The petitioner asserts that the
prosecutor's office knew or should have known of the four charges because they were all
named in the criminal complaint filed by Trooper Patterson. Therefore, the petitioner
reasons that because he has pled guilty to the hunting offenses, the DUI charges must be
dismissed. In response, the State argues that the petitioner is not entitled to this
relief because the State was unaware of the DUI charges until after the petitioner entered
his guilty plea to the hunting offenses. The State maintains that it never received
notice of the DUI charges until the afternoon of November 5, 1997, after the petitioner
had pled guilty to the hunting offenses.
Both the petitioner and
the State focus their arguments on Rule 8(a)(2) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
However, after considering the facts of this case, we find that the Rules of Criminal
Procedure for the Magistrate Courts of West Virginia actually apply. The petitioner was
charged with four misdemeanors and the State sought to prosecute him for those charges in
magistrate court. Rule 1 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure for Magistrate Courts defines
the scope of the rules by stating that "[t]hese rules govern the procedure in all
criminal proceedings in the magistrate courts of the State of West Virginia." We note
that Rule 1 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure for circuit courts indicates that those
rules also govern criminal proceedings before West Virginia magistrates "whenever
specifically provided in one of the rules." However, Rule 8(a)(2) does not contain
any language suggesting that it applies to magistrate court proceedings. See note 2,
supra. Therefore, whether the offenses for which the petitioner was charged should
have been joined for a single prosecution must be determined under the Rules of Criminal
Procedure for Magistrate Courts.
Rule 16A of the Rules of
Criminal Procedure for Magistrate Courts addresses the joinder of offenses. Rule 16(A)
provides:
(a) Two or more offenses may be charged in
the same complaint, and tried together, but only if (1) the offenses are of the same or
similar character, or (2) the offenses are based on the same act or transaction, or on
acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan.
A magistrate may also, in his or her discretion, order two or more complaints to be tried
together if the offenses could have been joined in one complaint.
Clearly, under Rule 16(A), joinder of offenses is discretionary, not
mandatory. Therefore, the State should not be precluded from pursuing a conviction for the
two DUI charges against the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ of prohibition and writ of
mandamus are denied.
Writs
denied.
Footnote: 1 1 Magistrate Terrango was assigned to the petitioner's case. However, he subsequently resigned his position and was replaced by Magistrate Willet, who took over his entire caseload.
Footnote: 2 2 Rule 8(a)(2) of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:
If
two or more offenses are known or should have been known by the exercise of due diligence
to the attorney for the state at the time of the commencement of the prosecution and were
committed within the same county having jurisdiction and venue of the offenses, all such
offenses upon which the attorney for the state elects to proceed shall be prosecuted by
separate counts in a single prosecution if they are based on the same act or transaction
or on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a
common scheme or plan, whether felonies or misdemeanors or both. Any offense required by
this rule to be prosecuted by a separate count in a single prosecution cannot be
subsequently prosecuted unless waived by the defendant.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.