State of West Virginia v. John Patrick Maudlin, 16-0501

John Patrick Maudlin pled guilty in Feb 2016 to one count of false pretenses pursuant to a plea agreement; he was undergoing chemotherapy at the time.
At plea hearing Maudlin obtained removal of the home-incarceration bond condition to receive treatment in Ohio.
At sentencing in April 2016 the State recommended (non-binding) probation or home incarceration under the plea deal.
The presentence investigation showed an extensive criminal history (multiple convictions since ~2000) and medium-range scores for pro-criminal attitude and anti-social pattern.
The circuit court denied Maudlin’s request for alternative sentencing and imposed 1–10 years’ incarceration; Maudlin filed a Rule 35(b) motion for reduction, which the court denied on April 29, 2016.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by denying a Rule 35(b) motion for reduction of sentence	State: the circuit court acted within its discretion and Rule 35(b) denial should be affirmed	Maudlin: his lack of violent history, recent college enrollment, and medical condition warranted alternative (non-custodial) sentence	Court: affirmed — no abuse of discretion because Maudlin presented no new facts within the 120-day Rule 35(b) period to justify reduction
Whether Rule 35(b) may be used to challenge the validity or appropriateness of the underlying sentence	State: Rule 35(b) only authorizes reduction, not collateral challenge to sentence validity	Maudlin: (implicitly) seeks review of sentence appropriateness via Rule 35(b)	Court: Rule 35(b) cannot be used to challenge conviction or sentence validity; such arguments are not reviewable on this Rule 35(b) appeal

State v. Head, 198 W.Va. 298, 480 S.E.2d 507 (establishes standard of review and limits on Rule 35(b) considerations)
State v. Marcum, 238 W.Va. 26, 792 S.E.2d 37 (clarifies Rule 35(b) review scope and that courts should consider events within the 120-day filing period)