State of West Virginia v. Martin R., 16-0982

Martin R. pled guilty in 2010 to three counts (two sexual abuse by a parent; one first-degree sexual abuse) arising from abuse of his minor daughter; plea accepted as knowing and voluntary.
Sentenced in 2010 to consecutive terms (10–20 years on two counts; 5–25 years on one count); plea and sentencing transcripts record his admission of sexual contact and victim impact testimony.
This Court affirmed convictions and sentences on direct appeal (Martin R. I); mandate issued and rehearing denied in 2016.
On September 16, 2016, Martin filed a Rule 35(b) motion seeking reduction of sentence, asserting the victim would recant and attaching prison rehabilitation certificates; he also sought appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing.
The circuit court denied the Rule 35(b) motion and the request for counsel/hearing on September 26, 2016; Martin appealed that denial.
The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning the record (plea and sentencing transcripts) contradicted Martin’s claims and showed the seriousness of the offenses, so no new hearing or counsel was required and denial of relief was not an abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether circuit court erred by denying appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing on Rule 35(b) motion	Martin: Victim will recant; hearing and counsel needed to develop that evidence	State: Plea/sentencing record contradicts recantation claim; no hearing required	Denied — no hearing or counsel required where record already adequate to resolve Rule 35(b) motion
Whether circuit court failed to consider rehabilitation in ruling on Rule 35(b)	Martin: Submitted rehabilitation certificates and argued they warranted sentence reduction	State: Rehabilitation does not overcome record of guilt and victim impact	Denied — court’s consideration inferred from record; no abuse of discretion in refusing reduction
Whether circuit court’s order lacked findings preventing meaningful appellate review	Martin: Order merely states it gave "consideration" without findings	State: Record (transcripts) supplies the factual basis to review denial	Denied — sufficient record exists; findings not required where cumulative record shows reasons for denial
Whether Rule 35(b) may be used to challenge conviction validity	Martin: (implicitly seeking relief based on alleged recantation)	State: Rule 35(b) authorizes only sentence reduction, not collateral attacks on conviction	Held — Rule 35(b) only authorizes sentence reduction, not challenges to conviction validity

State v. Marcum, 238 W.Va. 26, 792 S.E.2d 37 (sets Rule 35(b) standard of review and limits Rule 35(b) to sentence reduction)
State v. Head, 198 W.Va. 298, 480 S.E.2d 507 (three-pronged review standard and deference to trial court on Rule 35 motions)
State v. Redman, 213 W.Va. 175, 578 S.E.2d 369 (trial court must consider rehabilitation but appellate review may rely on the cumulative record)
State v. King, 205 W.Va. 422, 518 S.E.2d 663 (no hearing required on Rule 35(b) where adequate prior hearings exist)
State v. Goodnight, 169 W.Va. 366, 287 S.E.2d 504 (sentences within statutory limits are given deference absent impermissible factors)