Link to PDF file

No. 26006 - State of West Virginia ex rel. Terry Haynes v. West Virginia Parole Board

Starcher, C. J., dissenting:

        Although I somewhat reluctantly authored the previous majority opinion in Carper, I dissent to the decision in this case. I do so because I do not think that the majority opinion in Carper went far enough in protecting the ex post facto rights of the petitioner in that case.

        I have no problem with the propriety of the Carper decision's requiring certain standards and procedures of the parole board in granting parole set-offs of more than 1 year. I also have no problem with this Court establishing such standards and procedures so as to hold a statute constitutional. And, if the Legislature finds the standards to be objectionable and wants to establish other procedures and standards that meet constitutional muster, the Legislature can do so.

        Carper
, as far as it went, was fine. But Carper represents as far as three other members of this Court would go at the time it was being decided, and I joined them in going that far, and I wrote the opinion. That's jurisprudence.

        But, to me, neither Carper nor this case goes far enough in taking a stand against any erosion of the vital and fundamental ex post facto clause of our constitution, and I feel the need to so state today.