State of West Virginia v. Keith Rodenbach, 16-0815

On April 25, 2016, Keith Rodenbach pleaded guilty to one count each of grand larceny (theft of a 2004 Ford truck) and forgery (forged sales receipt for $87.98) after waiving indictment; other charges were dismissed and the State agreed to stand silent at sentencing.
The circuit court ordered a presentence investigation and held sentencing on June 7, 2016.
Rodenbach moved for probation or, alternatively, home confinement; the court denied alternative sentencing and imposed consecutive terms of imprisonment of 1 to 10 years on each count.
The court explained denial of alternative sentencing based on Rodenbach’s prior criminal history, prior parole violations, failure to benefit from prior opportunities, the nature of the offenses, and a likelihood to re-offend.
Rodenbach appealed, arguing the court erred by denying alternative sentencing and that consecutive, aggregate incarceration was disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment and West Virginia Constitution.
The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed, applying abuse-of-discretion review for sentencing and noting the sentences were within statutory limits and not based on impermissible factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Rodenbach)	Defendant's Argument (State / Trial Court)	Held
Whether trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing (probation/home confinement)	Rodenbach argued he was a good candidate: cooperated, remorseful, accepted responsibility, had reintegration plan	Court reasoned Rodenbach’s prior record, parole violations, failure to benefit from past opportunities, offense nature, and risk of re-offense made him unsuitable	Denial affirmed — sentencing decision reviewed for abuse of discretion and court did not abuse that discretion
Whether consecutive sentences were cruel, unusual, or disproportionate under federal and state constitutions	Rodenbach argued consecutive sentences were overly harsh and disproportionate to offenses	State noted sentences were within statutory ranges and based on permissible factors considered at sentencing	Affirmed — sentences within statutory limits and no impermissible factors alleged, so not subject to appellate reversal

State v. Adams, 211 W.Va. 231, 565 S.E.2d 353 (2002) (sets deferential abuse-of-discretion standard for review of sentencing orders)
State v. Rose, 156 W.Va. 342, 192 S.E.2d 884 (1972) (probation is a matter of grace, not a right)
State v. Goodnight, 169 W.Va. 366, 287 S.E.2d 504 (1982) (sentences within statutory limits and not based on impermissible factors are not subject to appellate review)