State of West Virginia v. H.B., 17-0167

Juvenile petition filed May 2016 after school officials discovered a planned attack; H.B. implicated for soliciting/conspiring to commit terrorist acts at Clay County Middle School.
Amended petition alleged planning to “shoot up and/or blow up” the school, solicitation of other students, and gathering materials for bombs, charged under W. Va. Code § 61-6-24.
H.B. pled guilty in July 2016 to two counts under § 61-6-24; court ordered a 40-day diagnostic/psychological evaluation at Robert Shell Juvenile Center.
Evaluation reported good institutional behavior, recommended strict treatment-based probation and individual counseling; MDT also recommended strict probation; H.B. remained on home incarceration after evaluation.
At dispositional hearing (Feb. 2017) State and defense recommended probation; court found H.B.’s planning, statements admitting intent (including a plan to "shoot the 8th graders on the second floor" and choosing April 20), and public-safety risk warranted commitment to the Division of Juvenile Services until age 18 or high school graduation.
H.B. appealed, arguing the court failed to make the statutorily required dispositional record and that placement was not the least-restrictive alternative; the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court failed to make the required record and findings when imposing commitment	H.B.: court did not explicitly address the Dostert/D.D.H. factors on the record at disposition	State: court incorporated prior evidence, the evaluative report, and expressly discussed factors (danger to public, planning, mental health)	Court: No error — court considered and incorporated prior record and articulated reasons supporting commitment
Whether commitment was more restrictive than necessary / not the least-restrictive alternative	H.B.: probation/home incarceration was sufficient; evaluator and State recommended probation	State: public-safety concerns supported commitment given H.B.’s admissions and minimization of intent; evaluator noted possible impression management	Court: Commitment within discretion — seriousness of planned attack, admissions, and concerns about risk justified placement in juvenile custody

State v. Head, 198 W.Va. 298, 480 S.E.2d 507 (1996) (standard of review for circuit court findings and dispositional decisions)
State v. Georgius, 225 W.Va. 716, 696 S.E.2d 18 (2010) (applies Head standard to juvenile proceedings)
State ex rel. D.D.H. v. Dostert, 165 W.Va. 448, 269 S.E.2d 401 (1980) (court must make record addressing specific factors when incarceration is contemplated)
State v. M.E., 170 W.Va. 367, 294 S.E.2d 171 (1982) (juvenile dispositional guidance)
State ex rel. R.S. v. Trent, 169 W.Va. 493, 289 S.E.2d 166 (1982) (juvenile disposition precedents)