State of West Virginia v. Antwyn D. Gibbs and State of West Virginia v. Kevin Goodman, Jr., 238 W. Va. 646

Background

Defendants Antwyn D. Gibbs and Kevin Goodman Jr. were tried jointly (with co-defendants) for first-degree robbery, entry of a dwelling, and conspiracy arising from an armed home robbery on Jan. 9, 2015; a jury convicted both and imposed consecutive sentences including 50 years for first-degree robbery.
Evidence: victim and eyewitness identifications; testimony from cooperating co-defendants (Kentrell Goodman and Rashod Wicker) describing planning, travel from South Carolina to West Virginia, weapons, and transport of stolen items; recovered stolen property and safe parts; physical evidence from Gibbs’s yard tied to opening the safe.
Pretrial, each petitioner moved to sever under Rule 14(b); the trial court denied all severance motions citing judicial economy and lack of shown prejudice. No Rule 24(b)(2) motion requesting additional peremptory strikes was filed.
Goodman argued severance denial allowed admission of evidence primarily linking Gibbs and was prejudicial; Gibbs argued the robbery instruction/indictment should have included "bodily fear" and that evidence was insufficient because the victim said he was not afraid.
Goodman also challenged proportionality of his 50-year robbery sentence under Article III, §5 of the West Virginia Constitution.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants were entitled to additional peremptory challenges or relief because they were tried jointly and thus shared six peremptory strikes	State: trial court acted within discretion; defendants failed to follow Rule 24(b)(2)	Defendants: denial of severance (and failure to address peremptory issue) caused per se prejudice by forcing them to share six strikes	Court held defendants must timely move under Rule 24(b)(2) to request additional peremptory challenges; absent such motion (or oral request) there was no abuse of discretion or demonstrated prejudice
Whether denial of Goodman’s motion to sever was an abuse because joint trial admitted irrelevant/prejudicial evidence tying only Gibbs to the crime	State: evidence arose from same criminal enterprise and was admissible against all; no actual prejudice	Goodman: evidence from Gibbs’s property and other items prejudiced him by linking him to the crime	Court held evidence was inextricably intertwined and relevant to all defendants; no clear prejudice and no abuse of discretion in denying severance
Sufficiency of evidence for Gibbs’s first-degree robbery conviction given indictment/instruction omitted the words "bodily fear"	Gibbs: absence of "bodily fear" in charging/instruction meant the State did not prove an element because victim said he was not afraid	State: first-degree robbery statute defines elements by violence or threat of deadly force; "bodily fear" is not an element of first-degree robbery	Court held "bodily fear" is not an element of first-degree robbery under §61-2-12(a); indictment/instruction were sufficient and evidence supported conviction
Whether Goodman’s 50-year sentence for first-degree robbery violated proportionality under WV Constitution	Goodman: 50 years is disproportionate (compares unfavorably to other jurisdictions and to internal sentencing schemes)	State: sentence within trial court discretion and consistent with legislative scheme and precedent upholding long sentences for armed robbery	Court held sentence was not disproportionate under objective/subjective tests and affirmed sentencing

Key Cases Cited

State v. Milburn, 204 W.Va. 203, 511 S.E.2d 828 (W.Va. 1998) (joint-trial joinder: evidence admissible in separate trials defeats Rule 14 severance claim)
State v. Rodoussakis, 204 W.Va. 58, 511 S.E.2d 469 (W.Va. 1998) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Harless, 168 W.Va. 707, 285 S.E.2d 461 (W.Va. 1981) (explains robbery degrees and "bodily fear" is not required for aggravated/first-degree robbery)
State v. Guthrie, 194 W.Va. 657, 461 S.E.2d 163 (W.Va. 1995) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Hall, 172 W.Va. 138, 304 S.E.2d 43 (W.Va. 1983) (indictment sufficiency follows statute language and must inform accused of charge)
State v. Cooper, 172 W.Va. 266, 304 S.E.2d 851 (W.Va. 1983) (subjective proportionality test under WV Constitution)
Wanstreet v. Bordenkircher, 166 W.Va. 523, 276 S.E.2d 205 (W.Va. 1981) (objective proportionality factors: nature of offense, legislative purpose, inter- and intra-jurisdictional comparisons)
State v. Adams, 211 W.Va. 231, 565 S.E.2d 353 (W.Va. 2002) (upholding long sentences for first-degree robbery; used in proportionality analysis)