727 S.E.2d 814
W. Va.2012Background
- Ms. Tanner appeals a circuit court parole order imposing numerous conditions, including not associating with any felon, specifically her husband.
- She and husband Michael Tanner previously manufactured methamphetamine together; she pleaded guilty to manufacturing a controlled substance in WV code § 60A-4-401 and was sentenced to 1–5 years with home confinement at first.
- After six months of home confinement, the court placed her on court-supervised parole for at least two years with the association restriction.
- Ms. Tanner argues the circuit court lacked authority to grant parole, and that the marriage ban constitutes an unreasonable burden on the right to marry.
- The court held the West Virginia Home Incarceration Act authorizes circuit courts to grant parole in this context, and the association ban is a proper, non-arbitrary condition to reduce recidivism.
- The order granting parole with the marital association restriction was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parole authority under the Home Incarceration Act | Tanner contends parole is executive, not judicial. | Court has authority under W. Va. Code § 62-11B-12(a). | Circuit court authority affirmed; parole valid under Act. |
| Constitutional scope of parole conditions | Association restriction burdens marriage without record justification. | Parole may impose special conditions to promote rehabilitation and public safety. | Conditions may be imposed; not unreasonable or arbitrary. |
| Reasonableness of restricting marital association | Ban on spouse contact is overbroad and tailored poorly to goals. | Restriction addresses recidivism risk given joint drug activity and husband's history. | Restriction proper and related to rehabilitation and public safety. |
Key Cases Cited
- Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006) (parole as continuation of imprisonment; probation vs parole distinctions)
- Gardner v. West Virginia Div. of Corrs., 210 W.Va. 783 (2002) (parole board discretion must avoid unreasonableness; standard of review)
- Jett v. Leverette, 162 W.Va. 140 (1978) (distinctions between probation and parole; rights tied to sentencing)
- State v. Scott, 214 W.Va. 1 (2003) (parole eligibility is not a guaranteed entitlement; due process considerations)
- Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (marriage is a basic civil right)