## Facts

- Three juveniles (J. M., G. E., and A. H.) filed consolidated habeas corpus petitions challenging delinquency-related adjudications and resulting commitments, alleging invalid waivers of counsel.
- G. E., nearly eighteen, appeared at a probation revocation hearing arising from involvement in an interstate automobile theft ring; after the judge offered appointed counsel if indigent, G. E. and his father waived counsel, probation was revoked, and he was committed to the Department of Corrections for placement until age twenty-one.
- After G. E. later obtained counsel, the Supreme Court directed the circuit court to hold a hearing on voluntariness of the waiver; the circuit court found the waiver voluntary.
- J. M., age sixteen, was accused of breaking and entering with intent to steal, had no counsel at the preliminary, adjudicatory, or dispositional stages, pled guilty, and was committed to the Department of Corrections until age twenty-one.
- A. H., age sixteen, faced multiple delinquency petitions (including assault, forgery, and marijuana possession with intent to deliver); with his father present he proceeded without counsel, and transcripts reflected that when asked at disposition if he wanted an attorney, he responded “Should I?” and then declined counsel after the judge stated it was not for the court to say.
- In each case, the record lacked a detailed, contemporaneous on-the-record inquiry establishing the juvenile’s understanding of the right to counsel and the consequences of proceeding without counsel.

## Issues

1. Under what circumstances, if any, may a juvenile validly waive the right to counsel in delinquency proceedings, including adjudicatory, dispositional, and probation revocation stages?
2. Whether the State proved that J. M., G. E., and A. H. knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived counsel so that their adjudications and commitments could stand.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia granted habeas corpus relief in all three consolidated cases.
- The court held that juvenile waivers of counsel are subject to heightened scrutiny and are generally invalid absent narrowly defined safeguards and an adequate record.
- The court concluded the State failed to carry its burden to show valid waivers by J. M., G. E., or A. H.
- The court set aside the challenged adjudications/commitments and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its requirements regarding counsel.

## Legal Principles

- Juveniles in delinquency proceedings that may result in loss of liberty have a due process right to counsel.
- A juvenile’s waiver of counsel is presumptively invalid; the State bears a heavy burden to prove a waiver that is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary under a heightened standard.
- A valid waiver requires a thorough, on-the-record colloquy demonstrating the juvenile understands the right to counsel, the charges, and the potential consequences of proceeding without counsel.
- Parental presence alone does not establish a valid waiver; the court must consider whether the parent understands the right and whether any conflict exists between parent and child.
- Statutory policy limiting juvenile waiver of other constitutional protections (including restrictions on juvenile interrogation without parent or counsel) supports requiring strong safeguards before accepting any waiver of counsel.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated the juveniles’ purported waivers of counsel and granted habeas relief, holding that counsel must ordinarily be provided in delinquency and related proceedings unless the State proves, on a detailed record and under strict safeguards, a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver.


State ex rel. J. M. v. Taylor, 166 W. Va. 511, 276 S.E.2d 199 (1981)