State of West Virginia v. Adrian Lance Morris ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                              STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
    SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
    State of West Virginia,
    Plaintiff Below, Respondent                                                         FILED
    September 25, 2017
    vs) No. 16-1041 (Monongalia County 15-F-278 and 15-F-291)                            RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK
    SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
    OF WEST VIRGINIA
    Adrian Lance Morris,
    Defendant Below, Petitioner
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Pro se petitioner Adrian Lance Morris appeals the Circuit Court of Monongalia County’s
    October 6, 2016, order denying his Rule 35(b) motion for reduction of sentence. The State, by
    counsel Shannon Frederick Kiser, filed a response and a supplemental appendix. On appeal,
    petitioner argues that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying his motion for reduction of
    sentence because he was entitled to alternative sentencing.
    This Court has considered the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal
    arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided
    by oral argument. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the briefs, and the record
    presented, this Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these
    reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court’s order is appropriate under Rule 21
    of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
    In 2015, petitioner was charged with multiple crimes across two separate criminal
    matters. The charges against petitioner included aggravated robbery, burglary, conspiracy, and
    grand larceny. In March of 2016, petitioner entered into a plea agreement to resolve the various
    outstanding criminal proceedings against him. According to the agreement, petitioner would
    plead guilty to one count of conspiracy and one count of grand larceny, while the State would
    agree to dismiss the remaining charges. An additional condition of the agreement was that “no
    alternative sentence such as home [incarceration] [or] probation will be requested by either the
    State or [petitioner].”
    Following petitioner’s plea, the circuit court sentenced him to a term of incarceration of
    one to ten years for his conviction of grand larceny and a term of incarceration of one to five
    years for his conviction of conspiracy. The circuit court further ordered the sentences to run
    concurrently. Following entry of the circuit court’s sentencing order, petitioner filed a “Motion
    For Reconsideration of Sentence” under Rule 35(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal
    1
    Procedure.1 The circuit court denied this motion by order entered on October 6, 2016. It is from
    this order that petitioner appeals.
    We have previously established the following standard of review:
    “In reviewing the findings of fact and conclusions of law of a circuit court
    concerning an order on a motion made under Rule 35 of the West Virginia Rules
    of Criminal Procedure, we apply a three-pronged standard of review. We review
    the decision on the Rule 35 motion under an abuse of discretion standard; the
    underlying facts are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard; and questions of
    law and interpretations of statutes and rules are subject to a de novo review.” Syl.
    Pt. 1, State v. Head, 
    198 W.Va. 298
    , 
    480 S.E.2d 507
     (1996).
    Syl. Pt. 1, State v. Marcum, 
    238 W.Va. 26
    , 
    792 S.E.2d 37
     (2016). Upon our review, we find no
    error in the proceedings below.
    In filing his motion for reduction of sentence, petitioner requested that the circuit court
    release him from incarceration so that he could be placed on probation. However, petitioner’s
    argument below, as before this Court, ignores the fact that the explicit terms of his plea
    agreement barred either party from requesting an alternative sentence, such as probation. In
    short, petitioner sought to use a Rule 35(b) motion as a mechanism to circumvent the explicit
    terms of his plea agreement.
    We have held that
    “[w]hen a defendant enters into a valid plea agreement with the State that
    is accepted by the trial court, an enforceable ‘right’ inures to both the State and
    the defendant not to have the terms of the plea agreement breached by either
    party.” Syllabus Point 4, State v. Myers, 
    204 W.Va. 449
    , 
    513 S.E.2d 676
     (1998).
    Syl. Pt. 4, State v. Spade, 
    225 W.Va. 649
    , 
    695 S.E.2d 879
     (2010). On its face, the plea agreement
    in this case barred either party from requesting probation as a sentence in this matter. That
    petitioner requested such a sentence in the form of a Rule 35(b) motion instead of at sentencing
    does not change the fact that he attempted to undermine the enforceable right of the State to a
    sentence of incarceration. As such, we find no abuse of discretion in the circuit court denying
    petitioner’s Rule 35(b) motion below.
    For the foregoing reasons, the circuit court’s October 6, 2016, sentencing order is hereby
    affirmed.
    Affirmed.
    1
    The Court notes that the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure do not provide for a
    “motion for reconsideration” in criminal proceedings. Rule 35 does allow a circuit court to
    revisit its sentencing order for purposes of either correcting or reducing the sentence imposed.
    2
    ISSUED: September 25, 2017
    CONCURRED IN BY:
    Chief Justice Allen H. Loughry II
    Justice Robin Jean Davis
    Justice Margaret L. Workman
    Justice Menis E. Ketchum
    Justice Elizabeth D. Walker
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-1041

Filed Date: 9/25/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/25/2017