Wade Painter v. David Ballard, Warden
237 W. Va. 502
| W. Va. | 2016Background
- Painter was convicted and ordered by the Berkeley County circuit court to pay specified restitution "from monies contained within any prison account or any assets of the defendant."
- While incarcerated at Mount Olive, DOC/warden began deducting 40% from funds in Painter’s inmate account (including gifts from family/friends) to satisfy restitution; DOC notice and Policy Directive 111.06 guided deductions.
- Policy Directive 111.06 defined "earnings" broadly (including gifts, inheritances, settlements) but expressly excluded "funds provided the inmate by family or friends."
- Painter exhausted administrative remedies, filed mandamus first in Fayette County (dismissed for improper venue), then in Kanawha County against the Warden seeking to prevent deductions from family/friend gifts.
- The Kanawha circuit court dismissed the mandamus petition as (1) improper venue/jurisdiction to interpret the Berkeley sentencing order and (2) concluding that the Warden’s deductions were permissible; Painter appealed.
- The West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed that deductions from family/friend gifts to satisfy restitution are permissible (limited to 40%), but reversed the Kanawha court’s venue/jurisdiction holdings and held Kanawha was the proper forum for mandamus against a state official.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Painter) | Defendant's Argument (Warden) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper venue/jurisdiction for a mandamus against Warden | Mandamus compels a state official to perform nondiscretionary duty; Kanawha court is proper (exclusive) venue for actions against state officials | Argued Kanawha lacked jurisdiction/venue because matter implicates interpretation of Berkeley sentencing order | Mandamus against state official properly filed in Kanawha; Kanawha has exclusive venue and jurisdiction for such actions (court reversed on venue/jurisdiction dismissal) |
| Whether DOC may deduct 40% from funds gifted by family/friends to satisfy court-ordered restitution | Gifts from family/friends are not "earnings" under statute/directive and thus exempt from deductions | Statute does not limit a sentencing court’s restitution order; "earnings" may be read broadly to include gifts; DOC rule valid | Court held statutory term "earnings" ambiguous; DOC legislative rule defines "earnings" to include gifts and is generally consistent with statute; but the Directive’s narrow carve-out excluding family/friend gifts is arbitrary and capricious and ignored. Deductions from family/friend gifts are permissible up to 40% |
| Scope of Policy Directive 111.06 relative to statute | Directive’s exclusion for family/friend gifts controls and prevents deductions | Directive may be subordinate; sentencing court/ statute governs collection | Directive’s definition of "earnings" is valid, except the specific exclusion for family/friend gifts conflicts with legislative intent and is arbitrary; exclusion ignored so deductions allowed |
| Limitation on deduction percentage | Not disputed by Painter | Warden applied 40% deduction | Court affirms maximum 40% deduction limit; inmate retains at least 60% (subject to other statutory deductions) |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. McGraw v. Scott Runyan Pontiac-Buick, Inc., 194 W.Va. 770, 461 S.E.2d 516 (W. Va. 1995) (de novo review standard for dismissal)
- Shaffer v. W.Va. Dep’t of Transp., Div. of Highways, 208 W.Va. 673, 542 S.E.2d 836 (W. Va. 2000) (de novo review of mandamus dismissal)
- State ex rel. Cooper v. Caperton, 196 W.Va. 208, 470 S.E.2d 162 (W. Va. 1996) (prerequisites for mandamus relief)
- State ex rel. Wheeling Downs Racing Ass’n v. Perry, 148 W.Va. 68, 132 S.E.2d 922 (W. Va. 1963) (mandamus to compel nondiscretionary duties of state official)
- State ex rel. Stewart v. Alsop, 207 W.Va. 430, 533 S.E.2d 362 (W. Va. 2000) (Kanawha County as exclusive venue for suits naming state officers/agency)
- Appalachian Power Co. v. State Tax Dep’t of W.Va., 195 W.Va. 573, 466 S.E.2d 424 (W. Va. 1995) (statute ambiguous → agency rule may fill gap)
- W.Va. Health Care Cost Review Auth. v. Boone Mem’l Hosp., 196 W.Va. 326, 472 S.E.2d 411 (W. Va. 1996) (when statute ambiguous, examine whether rule fills gap)
- Smith v. W.Va. Human Rights Comm’n, 216 W.Va. 2, 602 S.E.2d 445 (W. Va. 2004) (legislative rule has force and effect of law)
- Hereford v. Meek, 132 W.Va. 373, 52 S.E.2d 740 (W. Va. 1949) (statutory construction principles; ambiguity requires interpretation)