State of West Virginia v. Stephen Spires, 15-0924

Stephen Spires pled guilty (June 2014) to bank robbery; State agreed not to file recidivist information in exchange for plea.
At plea hearing counsel indicated Spires faced potential life exposure as a habitual offender; court recessed to consider a possible split sentence.
Circuit court rejected a split sentence as conflicting with statutory minimums and sentenced Spires to 10–20 years (Aug. 19, 2014).
Spires filed a Rule 35(b) motion for reduction of sentence on Jan. 26, 2015, acknowledging it was filed about one month late and asked alternatively that the motion be held in abeyance while he completed prison classes.
Circuit court denied the Rule 35(b) motion on July 21, 2015, finding the previously imposed sentence proper and declining to hold the motion in abeyance.
Spires appealed pro se; the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed, reviewing under the abuse-of-discretion standard and addressing the merits despite untimeliness.

Issue	Spires' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether sentence should be reduced on account of age/health and no weapon use	Spires argued mercy should be shown due to age (63), illnesses (hepatitis C, high blood pressure) and no weapon used	State argued sentence already reflected no weapon use and was appropriate given habitual status and plea bargain	Court held sentence proper; declined reduction; noted State had limited remedy by foregoing recidivist filing
Whether a "split sentence" (prison + alternative) was permissible	Spires (via counsel) sought consideration of split sentence	State objected; court found split sentence would deviate from statutory minimums under §61-2-12(c)	Court declined split sentence at sentencing and affirmed that decision on appeal
Whether late Rule 35(b) filing should be excused due to counsel error	Spires urged leniency and excusal because counsel failed to timely file	State treated merits substantively and argued sentence proper regardless of timeliness	Court addressed merits despite lateness but found no basis for reduction; did not rely on excusing untimeliness
Whether the court abused discretion by not holding the motion in abeyance while Spires completed programs	Spires asked court to hold motion in abeyance pending prison classes/treatment	State argued court should rule; Rule 35(b) requires ruling within a reasonable time	Court held it did not abuse discretion; Rule 35(b) requires timely ruling and abeyance was unwarranted

State v. Head, 198 W. Va. 298, 480 S.E.2d 507 (W. Va. 1996) (sets three-pronged standard of review for Rule 35 motions and discusses that denial is reviewed for abuse of discretion)