State of West Virginia v. Blair M., 16-0073

Blair M. was indicted in Randolph County for multiple sexual offenses arising from sexual contact with his then eight-year-old step-daughter/niece.
In April 2015 Blair pled guilty to two counts of first-degree sexual abuse and one count of incest pursuant to a plea agreement; the State reserved its sentencing recommendation pending the presentence investigation report (PSR).
Blair filed objections to portions of the PSR, disputing characterizations of his statements, some factual entries (employment, family), and asserting limited memory of events due to alcoholism.
At the November 2015 sentencing hearing the probation officer explained the PSR and corrected certain factual errors on the record; Blair admitted the offenses and his alcohol abuse.
The circuit court overruled Blair’s objections, considered the PSR, psychological and DOC evaluations, and sentenced him to 15–65 years incarceration, sex-offender registration, and 50 years supervised release.
Blair appealed, arguing (1) the circuit court failed to comply with Rule 32(c)(1) by not making required findings on contested PSR matters and (2) the sentence is disproportionate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court failed to comply with Rule 32(c)(1) by not making findings on PSR objections	Blair: court did not make specific rulings on controverted PSR matters and relied on impermissible factors at sentencing	State/court: court afforded opportunity to comment, heard testimony, corrected errors, overruled objections, and made findings that controverted matters were not relied on	Court: No error — Rule 32(c)(1) requirements were satisfied; sentencing based on permissible factors and independent consideration of records
Whether Blair’s sentence was disproportionate	Blair: sentencing for sexual offenses has become more severe and proportionality review should be expanded; his sentence is excessive	State/court: sentence is within statutory limits and not based on impermissible factors, so appellate review is precluded	Court: No relief — sentence within statutory limits and not reviewable absent impermissible factors; affirmed

State v. Vance, 207 W.Va. 640, 535 S.E.2d 484 (2000) (standard of review for circuit court rulings and factual findings in criminal cases)
State v. Goodnight, 169 W.Va. 366, 287 S.E.2d 504 (1982) (sentences within statutory limits and not based on impermissible factors generally not subject to appellate review)
State v. Georgius, 225 W.Va. 716, 696 S.E.2d 18 (2010) (reiterating principle limiting appellate review of sentences within statutory limits)
In re K.H., 235 W.Va. 254, 773 S.E.2d 20 (2015) (use of initials to protect identities in sensitive cases)
Melinda H. v. William R. II, 230 W.Va. 731, 742 S.E.2d 419 (2013) (practice of using initials in sensitive matters)
State v. Brandon B., 218 W.Va. 324, 624 S.E.2d 761 (2005) (same practice regarding initials)
State v. Edward Charles L., 183 W.Va. 641, 398 S.E.2d 123 (1990) (same practice regarding initials)