State of West Virginia v. Joe Roger Lane
Filed April 3, 2019 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The imposition of a life recidivist sentence under West Virginia's habitual offender statute may violate the proportionality clause of the West Virginia Constitution when the final, triggering offense involves no actual or threatened violence, and prior violent felony convictions are distant in time, especially if those prior convictions did not result in serious penalties.
Facts:
- On October 10, 2015, Joe Roger Lane sold Oxycodone to confidential informant Ina New on two separate occasions at a residence.
- Ina New was working for the Southern Regional Drug and Violent Crime Task Force and was given $50 for the first buy to purchase two Oxycodone 50 milligram pills for $45.
- The first drug transaction was recorded by a hidden camera worn by Ina New, and a subsequent second transaction on the same day for two more Oxycodone pills for $45 was also videotaped.
- Captain Don Cook searched Ina New and her vehicle before and after each purchase to ensure no illegal substances, money, or other contraband were present.
- The pills Ina New purchased from Joe Roger Lane were sent to the State Police laboratory and confirmed to be Oxycodone, a Schedule II Controlled Narcotic Substance.
- Joe Roger Lane had a prior felony conviction for unlawful wounding on March 20, 1997, for which he was sentenced to the Anthony Center for Youthful Offenders and placed on probation.
- Joe Roger Lane had a prior felony conviction for conspiracy to commit transferring stolen property on June 13, 2009, for which he was placed on probation after being credited with jail time.
Procedural Posture:
- On May 25, 2016, Joe Roger Lane was indicted on three counts of delivery of a controlled substance (one count was dismissed prior to trial).
- On November 29, 2016, a jury trial commenced in the Circuit Court of Wyoming County (the trial court/court of first instance).
- The jury found Joe Roger Lane guilty of two counts of delivery of a controlled substance.
- On January 27, 2017, the State of West Virginia filed a recidivist information alleging Joe Roger Lane's prior felony convictions for unlawful wounding (March 20, 1997) and conspiracy to commit transferring stolen property (June 13, 2009).
- On February 1, 2017, Joe Roger Lane's first recidivist trial commenced, resulting in a hung jury.
- On November 1, 2017, Joe Roger Lane's second recidivist trial commenced.
- The jury in the second recidivist trial found that Joe Roger Lane was the same person who had been convicted of the two prior felonies identified in the information.
- On November 6, 2017, the Circuit Court of Wyoming County sentenced Joe Roger Lane to life in prison with mercy pursuant to West Virginia Code § 61-11-18.
- Joe Roger Lane (Petitioner) appealed the conviction and sentence to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1) Was there sufficient evidence to sustain Joe Roger Lane's conviction for two counts of delivery of a controlled substance? 2) Does a recidivist life sentence, imposed for two counts of delivery of a controlled substance following prior felony convictions for unlawful wounding and conspiracy to commit transferring stolen property, violate the proportionality clause of the West Virginia Constitution when the triggering offense involved no actual or threatened violence?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Workman
No, there was no error in Joe Roger Lane's conviction for two counts of delivery of a controlled substance, as the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. However, yes, the recidivist life sentence imposed on Joe Roger Lane violates the proportionality clause of the West Virginia Constitution. Regarding the sufficiency of evidence, the Court applied the 'Guthrie' and 'LaRock' standards, which require reviewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and crediting all reasonable inferences and credibility assessments the jury might have drawn. The jury heard testimony from the law enforcement officer and the confidential informant, along with videotape evidence, all establishing the delivery of a controlled substance. Despite challenges to the confidential informant's credibility during cross-examination, credibility determinations are solely for the jury, and the jury clearly found the informant credible. Therefore, the evidence was sufficient to find Joe Roger Lane guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for two counts of delivery of a controlled substance. Regarding the proportionality of the recidivist life sentence, the Court reviews sentencing orders under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, unless they violate statutory or constitutional commands. The West Virginia Constitution's proportionality clause mandates that penalties be proportioned to the character and degree of the offense. While West Virginia Code § 61-11-18(c) provides for a life sentence for a third felony, such a sentence is subject to rigorous proportionality review. The Court, citing 'Wanstreet' and 'Beck,' emphasizes giving initial emphasis to the nature of the final offense that triggers the life sentence, and primarily analyzing whether the offenses involve actual or threatened violence to the person. In this case, the final, triggering offense of delivery of four Oxycodone pills did not involve any actual or threatened violence; no testimony or evidence suggested violence. Although a child was present at the residence when the confidential informant arrived, there was no evidence the child was present during the actual drug sale. Furthermore, while Joe Roger Lane's first prior felony (unlawful wounding) was violent, it occurred twenty years prior to the drug offense. His second prior felony (conspiracy to commit transferring stolen property) was non-violent. The prior sentences for these felonies were not so serious as to justify a life recidivist sentence. Based on precedent like 'Boso' and 'Deal,' which reversed life sentences for proportionality where triggering offenses were non-violent and prior violent felonies were distant, the Court found the life sentence with mercy to be unwarranted and an abuse of discretion, thus violating the proportionality clause of the West Virginia Constitution.
Dissenting - Justice Armstead
Justice Armstead dissents, and reserves the right to file a dissenting opinion.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the rigorous proportionality review required for mandatory recidivist life sentences under the West Virginia Constitution, even when a statute otherwise mandates such a sentence. It clarifies that a non-violent triggering offense, combined with distant and less severely punished prior felonies, can render a life sentence unconstitutionally disproportionate. The decision underscores the judiciary's role in mitigating the harshness of habitual offender statutes, particularly by focusing on whether the most recent and 'triggering' offense involved actual or threatened violence. This precedent provides critical guidance to trial courts and prosecutors in applying recidivist enhancements, ensuring that the 'ultimate punishment' of a life sentence is reserved for a criminal history truly justifying it.
