STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
 

State of West Virginia, FILED 

Plaintiff Below, Respondent January 14, 2013 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

vs.) No. 11-1324 (Berkeley County 07-F-124) OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Jason Rea,
 

Defendant Below, Petitioner
 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner’s appeal, by counsel Christopher J. Prezioso, arises from the Circuit Court of 

Berkeley County, wherein he was re-sentenced by order entered on August 23, 2011. The State, 

by counsel Cheryl K. Saville, has filed its response. 

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, the Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these 

reasons, a memorandum decision is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Revised Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. 

This case arises from an altercation between petitioner and another man that resulted in 

petitioner stabbing the man. He also stabbed the man’s grandmother who attempted to intervene 

in the altercation. Petitioner was indicted on six charges, and pled guilty to one count of attempted 

first degree murder pursuant to West Virginia Code §§ 61-2-1 and 61-11-8, two counts of 

malicious wounding pursuant to West Virginia Code § 61-2-9(a), and one count of burglary 

pursuant to West Virginia Code § 61-3-11(a). He also pled no contest to one count of burglary 

and one count of attempted first degree murder. Prior to sentencing, petitioner underwent a 

presentencing evaluation in which the evaluator concluded that petitioner was at low risk to 

reoffend. Petitioner was sentenced to terms of incarceration as follows: three to fifteen years on 

each of two counts of attempted first degree murder, two to ten years on each of two counts of 

malicious assault, and one to fifteen years on each of two counts of burglary, all to be served 

consecutively. Petitioner then moved for resentencing for purposes of filing this appeal, and this 

motion was granted. 

Petitioner argues that the circuit court erred in sentencing him to the maximum sentence 

allowed by law because petitioner had no prior criminal convictions and he pled guilty without 

the assistance of a plea agreement. Further, he was found to be at low risk to reoffend, and the 

State actually recommended a lesser sentence. Petitioner also argues that this Court should 

reconsider its previous rulings regarding appellate review of sentences, as a trial court may 

1
­
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

commit error even when a sentence is within statutory limits. The State argues in favor of the 

sentencing order, stating that the sentences herein do not “shock the conscience” and that the 

circuit court did not abuse its discretion. 

“‘The Supreme Court of Appeals reviews sentencing orders . . . under a deferential abuse 

of discretion standard, unless the order violates statutory or constitutional commands.’ Syl. Pt. 1, 

in part, State v. Lucas, 201 W.Va. 271, 496 S.E.2d 221 (1997).” Syl. Pt. 1, State v. James, 227 

W.Va. 407, 710 S.E.2d 98 (2011). Moreover, “‘[s]entences imposed by the trial court, if within 

statutory limits and if not based on some [im]permissible factor, are not subject to appellate 

review.’ Syllabus Point 4, State v. Goodnight, 169 W.Va. 366, 287 S.E.2d 504 (1982).” Syl. Pt. 6, 

State v. Slater, 222 W.Va. 499, 665 S.E.2d 674 (2008). 

Upon our review, we find no abuse of discretion by the circuit court in sentencing 

petitioner to a total of twelve to eighty years following his guilty and no contest pleas. The 

sentences imposed were within statutory limits and were not based on an impermissible factor. 

Therefore, the Court finds no error and sees no reason under the facts of this case to overturn 

well-established precedent regarding the review of sentencing orders. 

For the foregoing reasons, the circuit court’s sentencing order is hereby affirmed. 

Affirmed. 

ISSUED: January 14, 2013 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Chief Justice Brent D. Benjamin 

Justice Robin Jean Davis 

Justice Margaret L. Workman 

Justice Menis E. Ketchum 

Justice Allen H. Loughry II 

2
­