State of West Virginia v. Tyler Ferrebee
16-0984
| W. Va. | Oct 23, 2017Background
- In Jan. 2016 Ferrebee was indicted for first-degree robbery and first-degree murder; he pled guilty to first-degree robbery in exchange for dismissal of the murder charge.
- The circuit court accepted the plea and imposed a determinate 40-year penitentiary sentence.
- On September 16, 2016 Ferrebee filed a “Motion to Reconsider” under Rule 35(b) seeking reduction of his sentence.
- The circuit court denied the Rule 35(b) motion the same day; Ferrebee appealed that denial to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.
- Ferrebee’s sole claim on appeal was that his 40-year sentence was constitutionally disproportionate under the U.S. and West Virginia Constitutions.
- The Supreme Court considered briefs and record and issued a memorandum decision affirming the denial without oral argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ferrebee may challenge the proportionality/validity of his sentence in a Rule 35(b) motion | State: Rule 35(b) is a post-sentencing vehicle limited to correcting/reducing sentences; properly applied here to deny relief | Ferrebee: Sentence is disproportionate and unconstitutional; asks court to reduce sentence via Rule 35(b) | Held: Challenges to sentence validity/constitutionality are outside the scope of Rule 35(b); such claims must be raised in a timely direct appeal; denial affirmed |
| Whether a "motion to reconsider" is a proper label/procedure under criminal rules | State: Rule 35(b) governs sentence reconsideration; no separate criminal “motion to reconsider” exists | Ferrebee: Labeled his filing a Motion to Reconsider seeking reduction under Rule 35(b) | Held: Court noted Rules do not provide for a separate “motion to reconsider”; Rule 35(b) is the applicable rule for revisiting sentences |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marcum, 238 W.Va. 26, 792 S.E.2d 37 (W. Va. 2016) (Rule 35(b) is not a vehicle to challenge convictions or the validity of sentences; such challenges must be raised by direct appeal)
- State v. Head, 198 W.Va. 298, 480 S.E.2d 507 (W. Va. 1996) (standard of review for appeals of Rule 35 motions: abuse of discretion for decision, clearly erroneous for facts, de novo for legal questions)