Willard E. Bays v. Darry Casto, Clerk, Putnam Co. Magistrate Court
16-0719
| W. Va. | Apr 21, 2017Background
- Petitioner Willard E. Bays pleaded guilty to multiple misdemeanor worthless-check offenses in 2003 and was ordered to pay fines, costs, restitution, and fees, which he admits he never paid.
- Bays filed mandamus petitions in Putnam County Circuit Court (Civil Action Nos. 16-C-60 and 16-C-155) asking the magistrate clerk to destroy his misdemeanor court records under Rule 12 of the Magistrate Court Administrative Rules.
- Bays argued the 1988 version of Rule 12 applied (which required destruction 10 years after the last collection effort); that rule put worthless-check misdemeanors under “all other misdemeanors.”
- The circuit court denied relief relying on the current Rule 12 (amended in 2015), which requires retaining records for 75 years where fines remain unpaid, and dismissed the second petition as duplicative.
- The Supreme Court of Appeals reviewed the denial de novo and alternatively held that, even if the 1988 rule applied, Bays’s own allegations showed ongoing collection efforts (e.g., DMV license suspension), so the statutory destruction timeline had not been triggered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether magistrate court must destroy Bays’s misdemeanor records under Rule 12 | Rule 12 (1988) applies and required destruction 10 years after last collection effort | Current Rule 12 requires 75-year retention; even if 1988 rule applied, ongoing collection efforts prevent destruction | Court affirmed denial: records not destroyed because collection efforts continued, so destruction period not reached |
| Whether the circuit court erred in dismissing the second petition as duplicative | Bays sought relief in both petitions | Circuit court properly dismissed the second as previously addressed | Dismissal affirmed |
| Whether mandamus was appropriate remedy | Bays asserted a clear legal right to destruction under Rule 12 | Respondent argued petitioner failed to show clear right and alternative rule may apply | Mandamus denied: petitioner did not meet burden to show clear legal right |
| Whether the 2015 amendment to Rule 12 may be applied retroactively | Bays contended the earlier rule controlled | Respondent noted court need not decide retroactivity because Bays failed even under older rule | Court avoided retroactivity analysis and decided on the facts—affirmed denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Painter v. Ballard, 237 W.Va. 502 (2016) (mandamus standard and de novo review)
- Nobles v. Duncil, 202 W.Va. 523 (1998) (standards for mandamus relief)
- State ex rel. Kucera v. City of Wheeling, 153 W.Va. 538 (1969) (writ of mandamus requires clear legal right, legal duty, and absence of adequate remedy)
- Dadisman v. Moore, 181 W.Va. 779 (1988) (burden on petitioner to show clear legal right to mandamus)
- State ex rel. Nelson v. Ritchie, 154 W.Va. 644 (1970) (mandamus burden principles)