State of West Virginia v. Joe Roger Lane
Unreported (Filed: April 3, 2019) (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A mandatory life sentence imposed under West Virginia's recidivist statute violates the proportionality clause of the West Virginia Constitution when the triggering felony and the defendant's overall criminal history do not predominantly involve actual or threatened violence to a person.
Facts:
- On October 10, 2015, Joe Roger Lane sold Oxycodone to Ina New, a confidential informant working for the Southern Regional Drug and Violent Crime Task Force, on two separate occasions.
- Captain Don Cook, who supervised Ms. New, searched her and her vehicle before and after each purchase, and recorded the serial numbers of the $50 she was given for the buys.
- During the first buy, Ms. New purchased two Oxycodone 50 milligram pills for $45, and in the second buy later that day, she purchased two more Oxycodone pills for $45.
- Ms. New wore a hidden camera during the encounters, but the actual exchange of the tiny pills was not captured on video.
- Ms. New testified she had purchased illegal substances from Lane in the past and identified Ashley Lambert and her small child as being present at the residence when she arrived, but there was no evidence the child was present during the actual sales.
- Tara Hayslip, a forensic analyst, confirmed the pills purchased by Ms. New were Oxycodone, a Schedule II Controlled Narcotic Substance.
- Lane did not testify or offer any evidence in his defense at trial.
Procedural Posture:
- On May 25, 2016, Joe Roger Lane was indicted on three counts of delivery of a controlled substance, with one count dismissed prior to trial.
- Lane's jury trial commenced on November 29, 2016, in the Circuit Court of Wyoming County (trial court), and the jury found him guilty of two counts of delivery of a controlled substance.
- On January 27, 2017, the State of West Virginia filed a recidivist information against Lane, alleging prior felony convictions for unlawful wounding (March 20, 1997) and conspiracy to commit transferring stolen property (June 13, 2009).
- Lane's first recidivist trial commenced on February 1, 2017, and resulted in a hung jury.
- Lane's second recidivist trial commenced on November 1, 2017, and the jury found him to be the same person convicted of the two prior felonies identified in the information.
- On November 6, 2017, the Circuit Court of Wyoming County sentenced Lane to life in prison with mercy, pursuant to West Virginia Code § 61-11-18.
- Lane appealed his conviction and sentence to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, arguing insufficient evidence for conviction and disproportionality of the life sentence.
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 presented at trial to convict Joe Roger Lane of two counts of delivery of a controlled substance? 2. Does the imposition of a mandatory life sentence, pursuant to West Virginia Code § 61-11-18, violate the proportionality clause of the West Virginia Constitution when the triggering offense and prior felony convictions do not predominantly involve actual or threatened violence to a person?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Workman
1. Yes, there was sufficient evidence to convict Joe Roger Lane of two counts of delivery of a controlled substance. The Court applied the standards from State v. Guthrie and State v. LaRock, which require reviewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and crediting all inferences and credibility assessments the jury might have drawn in the prosecution’s favor. The jury heard testimony from the law enforcement officer and the confidential informant, and viewed videotape evidence. Challenges to the confidential informant’s credibility, including her prior misdemeanor conviction and pending charges, were made during cross-examination and closing arguments, but it was the jury’s prerogative to determine her credibility, which they clearly did by convicting Lane. The evidence, if believed, was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Yes, the imposition of Joe Roger Lane's mandatory life sentence violates the proportionality clause of the West Virginia Constitution. The Court reiterated that all life recidivist sentences are subject to constitutional proportionality review, despite statutory mandates. Applying the test from Wanstreet v. Bordenkircher and State v. Beck, the Court gives initial emphasis to the nature of the final offense triggering the life sentence, and considers whether it and the other underlying convictions involve actual or threatened violence to a person. Here, the triggering offense (delivery of four Oxycodone pills) involved no actual or threatened violence. Although a child was present at the residence when the informant arrived, there was no evidence the child was present during the actual sales on the porch. While Lane had a prior violent felony (unlawful wounding), it occurred twenty years prior, and his second felony (conspiracy to commit transferring stolen property) was non-violent. The prior sentences for these felonies were not severe enough to justify a life recidivist sentence. The Court distinguished State ex rel. Daye v. McBride because that case did not involve a constitutional proportionality challenge.
Dissenting - Justice Armstead
Justice Armstead dissented and reserved the right to file a dissenting opinion. No content for the dissenting opinion was provided in the case text.
Analysis:
This case clarifies and reinforces the West Virginia Supreme Court’s robust application of the proportionality clause of its state constitution, serving as a critical check on the harshness of mandatory recidivist sentencing statutes. By emphasizing that life sentences must primarily be reserved for crimes involving actual or threatened violence, the Court limits the application of the recidivist statute, especially in cases where the triggering offense is a non-violent drug crime. This decision is significant for future cases involving non-violent repeat offenders, as it guides trial courts to conduct a thorough proportionality analysis, focusing on the nature of the offenses rather than merely counting prior convictions, before imposing the severest penalties.
