State of West Virginia v. Jeffery A., 16-0890

Between June 2010 and December 2014, petitioner Jeffery A., who babysat an 11‑year‑old (R.F.), engaged in repeated sexual contact: touching the child’s vagina and breasts, forcing the child to touch his penis, and performing oral sex.
After the victim disclosed the abuse, a Braxton County grand jury indicted petitioner on multiple counts of first‑degree sexual assault, first‑degree sexual abuse, and sexual abuse by a person in a position of trust.
In March 2016 petitioner pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count of sexual abuse by a person in a position of trust; other counts were dismissed; the State reserved sentencing arguments.
A sex‑offender evaluation and presentence report showed petitioner admitted the acts and blamed the victim; the report and evaluator recommended correctional treatment.
At sentencing the circuit court denied petitioner’s request for alternative (non‑incarcerative) sentence, concluding incarceration was appropriate and that alternative sentencing would depreciate the seriousness of the offense; the court imposed 10–20 years incarceration and 40 years supervised release.
Petitioner appealed, claiming the court erred by imposing an indeterminate prison term instead of alternative sentencing and that the sentence was unconstitutionally disproportionate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court erred by imposing an indeterminate prison term instead of an alternative sentence	Petitioner: court failed to properly consider mitigating factors (poor health, crime‑free lifestyle, childhood trauma) and should have imposed probation/alternative sentencing	State: sentencing discretion rests with trial court; sentence is within statutory limits and based on permissible factors (evaluation and PSR)	Court affirmed: no error — sentence within statutory range; trial court permissibly exercised discretion based on evaluation and victim‑blaming by petitioner
Whether the 10–20 year sentence is unconstitutionally disproportionate under WV Constitution art. III, §5	Petitioner: indeterminate sentence effectively a life sentence given poor health; shocks the conscience	State: offense is serious (abuse of a child in position of trust); sentence authorized by statute and not disproportionate	Court affirmed: sentence does not shock the conscience; proportionality tests do not render sentence unconstitutional

State v. Head, 198 W.Va. 298, 480 S.E.2d 507 (standard of review for circuit court findings)
State v. Georgius, 225 W.Va. 716, 696 S.E.2d 18 (appellate review principles)
State v. Goodnight, 169 W.Va. 366, 287 S.E.2d 504 (sentences within statutory limits not subject to appellate review absent impermissible factor)
State v. Booth, 224 W.Va. 307, 685 S.E.2d 701 (reiterating Goodnight principle)
Wanstreet v. Bordenkircher, 166 W.Va. 523, 276 S.E.2d 205 (proportionality framework; applicability to indeterminate or life recidivist sentences)
State v. Vance, 164 W.Va. 216, 262 S.E.2d 423 (constitutional proportionality principle under WV Constitution)
State v. Cooper, 172 W.Va. 266, 304 S.E.2d 851 (test for whether punishment shocks the conscience and objective proportionality factors)
State v. Broughton, 196 W.Va. 281, 470 S.E.2d 413 (objective factors for disproportionality review)