State of West Virginia v. Anthony Slater
16-1129
| W. Va. | Oct 23, 2017Background
- Anthony Slater was indicted for delivery of a controlled substance and entered a plea to attempt to commit a felony (lesser-included offense) under a plea agreement.
- Under the plea deal the State dismissed a bound-over charge, agreed not to file a recidivist information, and remained silent at sentencing; plea form advised statutory maximums for attempt to commit a felony (1–3 years penitentiary or 6–12 months jail, fine up to $500).
- At sentencing Slater asked for home incarceration or, alternatively, placement in the regional jail rather than the state penitentiary.
- The circuit court found Slater had “benefited greatly” from the plea (lighter charge and waiver of recidivist filing) and, given his repeated law‑enforcement contact since 2005, denied alternative sentencing and sentenced him to 1–3 years in the penitentiary (within statutory limits).
- Slater appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by refusing alternative/community placement and that his sentence was disproportionate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of alternative sentencing or regional jail placement was an abuse of discretion | Slater: court erred by sentencing to penitentiary and relied improperly on the plea benefit tied to a dismissed charge based on an improper stop | State: sentence was within statutory bounds and based on permissible factors including plea benefits and criminal history | Court affirmed—no abuse of discretion; probation is discretionary and not a right |
| Whether sentencing relied on an impermissible factor | Slater: citation of plea benefit tied to a weak/dismissed charge was improper factor | State: plea benefit included legitimate concessions (lesser offense and recidivist waiver); court also cited repeated contacts with law enforcement | Court held no impermissible factor; reasons were permissible and sufficient |
| Whether Slater was entitled to incarceration in regional jail rather than penitentiary | Slater: requested regional jail as alternative to penitentiary | State: sentencing court has discretion to impose statutory penitentiary term | Court affirmed denial of regional jail placement; penitentiary term was within statutory discretion |
| Whether the sentence was constitutionally disproportionate | Slater: sentence disproportionate given offense nature and comparative punishments | State: contends sentence is within statutory limits; no substantive proportionality argument by Slater | Court declined to address proportionality on merits because sentence was within statutory maximum and Slater provided no supporting analysis; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lucas, 201 W.Va. 271, 496 S.E.2d 221 (1997) (standard of review for sentencing: abuse of discretion unless statutory/constitutional violation)
- State v. James, 227 W.Va. 407, 710 S.E.2d 98 (2011) (applies Lucas standard)
- 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 reversal)
- State v. Georgius, 225 W.Va. 716, 696 S.E.2d 18 (2010) (reiterating limits on appellate review of sentencing)
- State v. Rose, 156 W.Va. 342, 192 S.E.2d 884 (1972) (establishes that probation is a matter of grace, not a right)
- Wanstreet v. Bordenkircher, 166 W.Va. 523, 276 S.E.2d 205 (1981) (proportionality review applies mainly where no statutory maximum or life recidivist sentence)