Casto v. Frazier

248 W.Va. 554

889 S.E.2d 276

Clint CASTO, Petitioner Below, Petitioner, v. Everett FRAZIER, Commissioner, West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles, Respondent Below, Respondent.

No. 21-0371

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted: April 18, 2023

Filed: June 15, 2023

Jeremy B. Cooper, Esq., Blackwater Law PLLC, Aspinwall, Pennsylvania, Attorney for Petitioner

Patrick Morrisey, Esq., Attorney General, Elaine L. Skorich, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Janet E. James, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, Attorneys for Respondent

BUNN, Justice:

Petitioner Clint Casto appeals from an order entered April 9, 2021, by the Circuit Court of Kanawha County that affirmed an order entered by the Office of Administrative Hearings ("OAH"). The OAH's order upheld the administrative revocation of Mr. Casto's driver's license for driving under the influence of controlled substances or drugs. On appeal to this Court, Mr. Casto argues that the evidence is not sufficient to support a finding that he was driving under the influence. Respondent, Everett Frazier, ¹ Commissioner of the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles ("DMV"), contends that Mr. Casto's license revocation was proper.

We conclude that the evidence in this case is not sufficient to support Mr. Casto's license revocation. Therefore, we reverse the circuit court's April 9, 2021 order affirming the OAH's order that upheld the revocation and remand this case for an order rescinding the DMV's revocation order and reinstating Mr. Casto's driver's license.

I.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

At approximately 3:00 a.m. on April 13, 2019, Patrolman R.C. Montagu of the Charleston Police Department observed Mr. Casto parking diagonally across multiple spaces in a convenience store parking lot. Patrolman Montagu reported that Mr. Casto appeared unsteady upon exiting his vehicle, left the vehicle running while he went into the store, looked around, and exited the store without making a purchase. When Mr. Casto left the store, Patrolman Montagu approached him and began an investigation to determine whether Mr. Casto had been driving under the influence of alcohol, controlled substances, and/or drugs. Mr. Casto denied having ingested any of these substances, and his preliminary breath test at the scene showed no presence of alcohol in his system.

Patrolman Montagu noted that Mr. Casto had bloodshot eyes and administered three field sobriety tests. There was no evidence of impairment from the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, but Mr. Casto performed the one-leg stand test improperly and incorrectly estimated twenty-five seconds to be thirty seconds, and he also had difficulties with the walk-and-turn test.

Patrolman Montagu, who had been trained to detect drug use, administered two additional field tests and reported that Mr. Casto's performance on these tests "indicated a high probability of impairment." Patrolman Montagu's report regarding his encounter with Mr. Casto does not state whether he found any evidence of drug use or consumption on Mr. Casto or in his vehicle. Patrolman Montagu placed Mr. Casto under arrest for driving under the influence, then asked him if he would submit to a blood test, as the secondary chemical test. Mr. Casto agreed to submit to a blood test and also asked for a blood test himself. Mr. Casto's blood sample was taken shortly after his arrest, and the West Virginia State Police Forensic Laboratory analyzed it. Mr. Casto's blood sample was subjected to a ninety-panel screen, and it was negative for all tested substances.

Despite the negative blood test, the DMV administratively revoked Mr. Casto's driver's license for driving under the influence of controlled substances or drugs based upon the results of the field sobriety tests and Patrolman Montagu's observations during the traffic stop. Mr. Casto appealed to the OAH. During the hearing before the OAH, Mr. Casto testified that on the night of his arrest, he had just finished working his second job of the day, ² that he had a right leg injury that might have affected his performance on the field sobriety tests, and that he was wearing "steel toed tennis shoes" that might have also affected his performance on the tests. The record is unclear as to whether Mr. Casto told Patrolman Montagu about these purported issues on the night of the arrest. The OAH upheld the DMV's revocation. Mr. Casto then appealed to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, which also upheld his license revocation by order entered April 9, 2021. Mr. Casto now appeals to this Court.

II.STANDARD OF REVIEW

This appeal is before the Court upon Mr. Casto's unsuccessful appeals to the OAH and the circuit court. As an administrative appeal, the West Virginia Administrative Procedures Act governs the scope of judicial review by the circuit court and this Court. See generally W. Va. Code § 29A-5-4. Regarding the nature of the circuit court's review, we have held that,

[u]pon judicial review of a contested case under the West Virginia Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 29A, Article 5, Section 4(g), the circuit court may affirm the order or decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings. The circuit court shall reverse, vacate or modify the order or decision of the agency if the substantial rights of the petitioner or petitioners have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, decisions or order are: "(1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; or (2) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency; or (3) Made upon unlawful procedures; or (4) Affected by other error of law; or (5) Clearly wrong in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion."

Syl. pt. 2, Shepherdstown Volunteer Fire Dep't v. State ex rel. W. Va. Hum. Rts. Comm'n , 172 W. Va. 627, 309 S.E.2d 342 (1983). This same standard also applies to this Court's review:

On appeal of an administrative order from a circuit court, this Court is bound by the statutory standards contained in W. Va. Code § 29A-5-4 [(g)] and reviews questions of law presented de novo; findings of fact by the administrative officer are accorded deference unless the reviewing court believes the findings to be clearly wrong.

Syl. pt. 1, Muscatell v. Cline , 196 W. Va. 588, 474 S.E.2d 518 (1996). Finally, to the extent we must review the circuit court's construction and application of the governing statutes, we review those determinations de novo. See Syl. pt. 1, Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W. Va. 138, 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995) ("Where the issue on an appeal from the circuit court is clearly a question of law or involving an interpretation of a statute, we apply a de novo standard of review.").

III.DISCUSSION

Mr. Casto assigns two errors on appeal to this Court: (1) the circuit court erred by upholding his license revocation because there was insufficient evidence to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he had ingested alcohol, drugs, and/or controlled substances and (2) his revocation order should be vacated because this case is still pending after the OAH's dissolution. ³ The DMV responds that neither of these assigned errors warrants reversal of the circuit court's order. We disagree.

Whether the DMV properly revoked Mr. Casto's driver's license for driving under the influence of alcohol, controlled substances, or drugs is governed by statute and guided by our rules of statutory construction. "The primary object in construing a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature." Syl. pt. 1, Smith v. State Workmen's Comp. Comm'r , 159 W. Va. 108, 219 S.E.2d 361 (1975). We have summarized several other principles that govern our consideration of statutes as follows:

Some of the rules of statutory construction that we have utilized are: Effect should be given to the spirit, purpose and intent of the lawmakers without limiting the interpretation in such a manner as to defeat the underlying purpose of the statute. Each word of a statute should be given some effect and a statute must be construed in accordance with the import of its language. Undefined words and terms used in a legislative enactment will be given their common, ordinary and accepted meaning.

Syl. pt. 6, State ex rel. Cohen v. Manchin , 175 W. Va. 525, 336 S.E.2d 171 (1984). Moreover, "[i]t is always presumed that the legislature will not enact a meaningless or useless statute." Syl. pt. 4, State ex rel. Hardesty v. Aracoma-Chief Logan No. 4523, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S., Inc., 147 W. Va. 645, 129 S.E.2d 921 (1963). Therefore, "[a] cardinal rule of statutory construction is that significance and effect must, if possible, be given to every section, clause, word or part of the statute." Syl. pt. 3, Meadows v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 207 W. Va. 203, 530 S.E.2d 676 (1999).

Pursuant to the statute that was in effect at the time of Mr. Casto's license revocation, the DMV could administratively revoke a driver's license if he drove under conditions that would have constituted the crime of driving under the influence of alcohol, controlled substances, or drugs:

If, upon examination of the written statement of the officer and the tests [sic] results described in subsection (b) of this section, the commissioner determines that a person committed an offense described in section two [§ 17C-5-2], article five of this chapter ... and that the results of any secondary test or tests indicate that at the time the test or tests were administered the person had, in his or her blood, an alcohol concentration of eight hundredths of one percent or more, by weight, or at the time the person committed the offense he or she was under the influence of alcohol, controlled substances or drugs , the commissioner shall make and enter an order

...