Carney v. Sidiropolis
In Carney v. Sidiropolis, 183 W. Va. 194, 394 S.E.2d 889 (1990), the Court expressed our belief that "a license suspension or revocation entered by the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles may be used by the Commissioner in enhancing the revocation or suspension period on a second offense even if the driver has appealed the Commissioner's first action and even if the appeal is unresolved at the time of the second incident of driving under the influence of alcohol." 183 W. Va. at 196, 394 S.E.2d at 891.
The circuit court and McVey focused on this statement in Carney: "all that is necessary for the enhancement of a revocation for ten years is a showing that the commissioner previously revoked the person's license for having more than ten one hundredths of one percent, by weight, of alcohol in his blood or for driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol." Id. at 197, at 892.
The Court's use of the verb "revoked" simply reflected the fact that Carney's license had previously been revoked under W. Va. Code 17C-5A-1(c).
The Court in Carney, after first quoting subsection (i) of W. Va. Code 17C-5A-2 in its entirety, observed that "'when a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, it is the duty of the courts to apply the statute in accordance with the legislative intent therein clearly expressed.'" Id. at 196, at 891.
The Court went on to state that "the legislature in W. Va. Code 17C-5A-2(i), specifically indicated that a driver's license should be revoked for ten years '. . . if the Commissioner has previously suspended or revoked the person's license . . .' under W. Va. Code 17C-5A-1 or 17C-5A-2." Id.