W. Va. Code, 49-5-10(a) [1977] [now 2001] [now codified as § 49-4-710 (2015)]." Syl. Pt. 1, State v. Bannister , 162 W. Va. 447, 250 S.E.2d 53 (1978). III. DISCUSSION
See W. Va. Code § 49-1-1(a) (Cum. Supp. 1978); State ex rel. S.J.C. v. Fox, 165 W. Va. 314, 268 S.E.2d 56 (1980); State v. D.W.C., 163 W. Va. 494, 256 S.E.2d 894 (1979); State v. Bannister, 162 W. Va. 447, 250 S.E.2d 53 (1978); State ex rel. Smith v. Scott, supra; State ex rel. Harris v. Calendine, 160 W. Va. 172, 233 S.E.2d 318, (1977). The legislature has recognized the importance of the Kent criteria by incorporating several of them into the 1978 juvenile law.
Furthermore, it is generally accepted under West Virginia law that a newly-enacted statute will be presumed to operate prospectively, rather than retroactively, unless the legislative intent to apply retroactive effect to the statute is clearly indicated by the strong and imperative language of the statute or otherwise by necessary implication. W.Va.Code § 2-2-10(bb); State v. Bannister, 162 W.Va. 447, 250 S.E.2d 53 (1978); Shanholtz v. Monongahela Power Co., 165 W.Va. 305, 270 S.E.2d 178 (1980). Since there is no language or necessary implication that the 1989 version of W.Va.Code § 46-9-401 was intended by the legislature to operate retroactively, the Court does not find that the mere absence of a savings clause would necessitate such an interpretation.
Further, an order transferring a juvenile to adult jurisdiction may only be set aside where the order is "clearly wrong or against the plain preponderance of the evidence[.]" Syl. Pt. 1, in part, State v. Bannister, 162 W.Va. 447, 250 S.E.2d 53 (1978).
W.Va. Code, 49-5-10(a) [1977]." Syl. pt. 1, State v. Bannister, 162 W. Va. 447, 250 S.E.2d 53 (1978). Upon our review of the record, we find that it is unnecessary to analyze the testimony of Lt. Harmison, because probable cause existed even without his testimony: The Sherriff's Department received an anonymous tip naming "Georgie W." as being involved in the robbery; Deborah Beckman, Wendy Beckman, and Amy Edwards each described their assailants to the court, and the court was able to witness both the petitioner and Mr. Derr; Wendy Beckman and Amy Edwards testified that one of the men went directly to the location of the lockbox and immediately left after retrieving the lockbox; Deborah Beckman testified that the petitioner was an employee of the Beckmans and that he would have known about the lockbox, where it was, and that it contained cash; Elizabeth McClain testified that she discovered the drawing depicting the layout of the Beckman's home in one of the petitioner's school books, and the drawing was admitted into evidence; and Ms. McClain also testified that around the 9th or
W. Va.Code, 49-5-10(a) [1977] [now 2001]." Syllabus Point 1, State v. Bannister, 162 W.Va. 447, 250 S.E.2d 53 (1978).Id. Upon our review, the Court finds no error in the circuit court's order transferring the matter to adult criminal jurisdiction.
W. Va. Code, 49-5-10(a) [1977] [now 2001]. Syllabus Point 1, State v. Bannister, 162 W. Va. 447, 250 S.E.2d 53 (1978). We have more recently clarified that "[w]here 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."
" Syl. pt. 1, Loveless v. State Workmen's Comp. Comm'r, 155 W. Va. 264, 184 S.E.2d 127 (1971). Accord Syl. pt. 2, Conley v. Workers' Comp. Div., 199 W. Va. 196, 483 S.E.2d 542 (1997); State v. Bannister, 162 W. Va. 447, 453, 250 S.E.2d 53, 56 (1978). Thus, "[t]he general rule is that statutes are construed to operate in the future only and are not given retroactive effect unless the legislature clearly expresses its intention to make them retroactive."
1. "'Where the findings of fact and conclusions of law justifying an order transferring a juvenile proceeding to the criminal jurisdiction of the circuit court are clearly wrong or against the plain preponderance of the evidence, such findings of fact and conclusions of law must be reversed. W. Va. Code, 49-5-10(a) [1977] [now, 49-5-10(e) [1996]].' Syl. pt. 1, State v. Bannister, 162 W. Va. 447, 250 S.E.2d 53 (1978)." Syl. Pt. 1, In re H.J.D., 180 W. Va. 105, 375 S.E.2d 576 (1988).
W. Va. Code, 49-5-10(a) [1977] [now, 49-5-10(e) [1996]]." Syl. pt. 1, State v. Bannister, 162 W. Va. 447, 250 S.E.2d 53 (1978). 180 W. Va. at 106, 375 S.E.2d at 577, syl. pt. 1.