State of West Virginia v. Jeffrey S., 15-1222

Jeffrey S. pled guilty to one count of operating a clandestine drug laboratory (methamphetamine) and one count of sexual abuse by a person in a position of trust relating to a 13‑year‑old child; remaining charges were dismissed under the plea agreement.
At plea hearing he admitted operating the lab and having sexual intercourse with the child whom he cared for and transported to activities.
Pre‑sentence report noted continued marijuana use and possible additional sexual abuse allegations involving another child.
The Wirt County Circuit Court denied probation or alternative sentencing, calling the conduct long‑term and troubling and noting petitioner’s tendency to blame the victim.
On May 26, 2015 (order entered Nov. 19, 2015) petitioner was sentenced to consecutive terms: 2–10 years for the clandestine lab conviction and 10–20 years for the sexual‑abuse‑in‑position‑of‑trust conviction, plus 30 years supervised release.
Petitioner appealed, arguing the sentence was excessive, that consecutive sentences were improper (and disparate compared to a co‑defendant), and that supervised release violated double jeopardy and was disproportionate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Jeffrey S.)	Held
1. Sentence excessive	Sentence within statutory limits and supported by facts; deferential review	Sentence is excessive because petitioner is a first‑time felon	Affirmed — sentence within statutory ranges and not based on impermissible factors; abuse‑of‑discretion review denies relief
2. Consecutive sentences	Trial court acted within discretion to order consecutive terms for separate crimes	Consecutive imprisonment punished the drug offense as extra punishment tied to sexual‑offense case; unfair compared to co‑defendant’s home incarceration	Affirmed — consecutive sentences proper where separate convictions; disparate co‑defendant sentences not per se unconstitutional and facts justified disparity
3. Supervised release double jeopardy	Statute authorizes up to 50 years supervised release for the offense; imposition does not violate double jeopardy	Thirty‑year supervised release is double punishment and disproportionate	Affirmed — supervised release is a legislatively mandated part of sentence and does not violate double jeopardy
4. Disproportionate punishment	Sentencing factors (victim relationship, continued substance use, other allegations) justify sentence length	Sentence is disproportionate given petitioner’s asserted status as first felony offender	Affirmed — no unconstitutional disproportionality found; sentence within statutory limits

State v. Georgius, 225 W. Va. 716, 696 S.E.2d 18 (W. Va. 2010) (establishes deferential abuse‑of‑discretion standard for reviewing sentencing orders)
State v. Goodnight, 169 W. Va. 366, 287 S.E.2d 504 (W. Va. 1982) (sentences within statutory limits and not based on impermissible factors are not subject to appellate review)
State v. Allen, 208 W. Va. 144, 539 S.E.2d 87 (W. Va. 1999) (trial court may order consecutive sentences for separate crimes absent prior pronouncement of concurrency)
State v. Buck, 173 W. Va. 243, 314 S.E.2d 406 (W. Va. 1984) (disparate sentences among co‑defendants are permissible; courts examine relative involvement, records, remorse, rehabilitative potential)
State v. James, 227 W. Va. 407, 710 S.E.2d 98 (W. Va. 2001) (related to supervised release and sentencing matters)