State of West Virginia v. Tanya Jean Parker-Boling
16-1193
| W. Va. | Nov 22, 2017Background
- Tanya Jean Parker-Boling pleaded guilty in 2010 to one count of third-degree sexual assault; sentenced to 1–5 years plus 25 years of supervised (extended) release.
- After release she repeatedly violated supervised release conditions; prior revocations resulted in short prison terms and reinstatement to supervision; this was her fourth revocation.
- Violations alleged included loss of verifiable residence, discharge from sex-offender treatment, possession/undisclosed social-media/accounts leading to three felony failure-to-register charges, and violation of facility drug rules.
- Following the fourth revocation, the circuit court found violations by clear and convincing evidence and ordered Parker-Boling to serve the remainder of her 25-year supervised-release term in prison (about 21.5 years after credit).
- Parker-Boling appealed, arguing the post-revocation custody term is unconstitutional as cruel and unusual and disproportionate to her underlying offenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a long post-revocation sentence violates the proportionality (cruel and unusual) principle | Parker-Boling: 21.5-year post-revocation prison term is grossly disproportionate given original 1–5 year sentence and resulting failure-to-register plea (1–5 years) | State/Circuit Ct: Statute permits extended supervision and revocation to require service of supervised-release term; repeated violations and seriousness of underlying sexual offense justify long post-revocation confinement | Affirmed: sentence does not violate subjective or objective proportionality tests; not cruel and unusual |
| Whether repeated violations permit serving entire supervised-release term in custody | Parker-Boling: combining original and failure-to-register exposure shows lesser aggregate punishment; long confinement is excessive | State/Circuit Ct: W.Va. Code authorizes revocation and serving all or part of supervised-release term if violations proven | Held: statute and precedent allow revocation to impose remaining supervised-release term; applicable here |
| Whether the sentence shocks the conscience under subjective test | Parker-Boling: sentence shocks conscience given comparatively short potential sentences for convictions | State/Circuit Ct: underlying crime victimized a child, involved sexual contact; multiple post-release failures and placements exhausted | Held: did not shock the conscience — seriousness and repeated violations distinguish case |
| Whether objective proportionality factors (nature, legislative purpose, cross-jurisdiction/within-jurisdiction comparisons) render sentence unconstitutional | Parker-Boling: did not adequately analyze objective factors; argues disproportionality | State/Circuit Ct: legislative scheme contemplates long supervised-release for sex offenses; comparisons and policy support extended supervision enforcement | Held: Parker-Boling failed to establish objective disproportionality; court declines relief |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. James, 227 W.Va. 407, 710 S.E.2d 98 (2011) (standard of review for sentencing and discussion of supervised-release statute)
- State v. Lucas, 201 W.Va. 271, 496 S.E.2d 221 (1997) (deferential review of sentencing orders)
- State v. Adams, 211 W.Va. 231, 565 S.E.2d 353 (2002) (subjective and objective proportionality tests explained)
- State v. Vance, 164 W.Va. 216, 262 S.E.2d 423 (1980) (proportionality principle under state constitution)
- State v. Hargus, 232 W.Va. 735, 753 S.E.2d 893 (2013) (upholding post-revocation incarceration as not disproportionate for sex-related offense)
- State, Dep’t of Health & Human Res. v. Robert Morris N., 195 W.Va. 759, 466 S.E.2d 827 (1995) (procedural note that skeletal arguments do not preserve claims)