1

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

State of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, 

Respondent 

vs) No. 14-0726 (Putnam County 13-F-145)

Jason D. Fields, Defendant Below, 

Petitioner 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Jason D. Fields, by counsel Timothy J. LaFon, appeals the Circuit Court of 

Putnam County’s June 27, 2014, order sentencing him to thirty-years of incarceration following 

his guilty plea to first-degree robbery without the use of a firearm. The State, by counsel Kristine 

D. Raynes, filed a response. On appeal, petitioner alleges that the circuit court abused its 

discretion by imposing a thirty-year sentence. 

 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 affirming the circuit court’s order is appropriate under Rule 21 

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

 In June of 2013, petitioner and a co-defendant allegedly robbed a gas station at gun point. 

Petitioner was arrested and indicted in November 2013 for the felony offense of first-degree 

robbery in violation of West Virginia Code § 61-2-12. In February of 2014, petitioner and the 

State entered into a plea agreement whereby petitioner would plead guilty to a lesser included 

charge of the felony offense of first-degree robbery without the use of a firearm. The circuit 

court accepted petitioner’s guilty plea. 

 The circuit court held a sentencing hearing in June of 2014. At the hearing, petitioner 

requested the minimum sentence of ten years imprisonment and further requested that he be 

placed in an in-patient drug addiction treatment facility. After petitioner’s allocution, the State 

recommended the minimum sentence of ten years imprisonment. The circuit court reviewed 

petitioner’s pre-sentence investigation report and the victim’s impact statement. The circuit court 

imposed the following sentence: thirty-years of incarceration for the felony offense of firstdegree robbery without the use of a firearm. Thereafter, by order entered in June of 2014, the 

circuit court sentenced petitioner to the same terms for purposes of appeal, and it is from that 

order that petitioner appeals. 

FILED 

October 20, 2015

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA
2

Petitioner’s sole argument on appeal is that the record does not support the circuit court’s 

imposition of such a long term of incarceration. Upon our review, we find no error in the circuit 

court’s sentencing order. “The Supreme Court of Appeals reviews sentencing orders ... under a 

deferential abuse of discretion standard, unless the order violates statutory or constitutional 

commands.” See State v. Head, 198 W.Va. 298, 301, 480 S.E.2d 507, 510 (1996). We have 

previously held that “‘[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. 3, State v. Georgius, 225 

W.Va. 716, 696 S.E.2d 18 (2010). 

As to petitioner’s sentence for first-degree robbery, the Court has previously stated that 

[t]he robbery by violence statute is one of the few criminal statutes in our 

jurisdiction that enables the court to set a determinate sentence without reference 

to any statutory maximum limit. With the exception of the life recidivist statute 

discussed in State v. Vance, 164 W.Va. 216, 262 S.E.2d 423 (1980), we do not 

believe that the disproportionality principle can have any significant application 

other than to this type of sentencing statute. 

State v. Manley, 212 W.Va. 509, 512–13, 575 S.E.2d 119, 122–23 (2002) (quoting Wanstreet v. 

Bordenkircher, 166 W.Va. 523, 531–32, 276 S.E.2d 205, 211 (1981)). 

There are two tests to determine whether a sentence is so disproportionate that it violates 

constitutional provisions. We have stated that 

[t]he first is a subjective test and asks whether the sentence for a particular crime 

shocks the conscience of the Court and society. If the sentence is so offensive that 

it cannot pass this test, then inquiry need proceed no further. When it cannot be 

said that a sentence shocks the conscience, a disproportionality challenge should 

be resolved by more objective factors which include the consideration of the 

nature of the offense, the defendant's past criminal history, and his proclivity to 

engage in violent acts. 

 

State v. Ross, 184 W.Va. 579, 581–82, 402 S.E.2d 248, 250–51 (1990) (citing State v. Martin, 

177 W.Va. 758, 356 S.E.2d 629 (1987); State v. Glover, 177 W.Va. 650, 355 S.E.2d 631 (1987); 

State v. Buck, 173 W.Va. 243, 314 S.E.2d 406 (1984)). 

First, the thirty-year sentence imposed on petitioner does not shock the conscience of this 

Court or society. While petitioner argues that there is no support in the record for his sentence, 

the record on appeal shows that petitioner and his co-defendant put on masks, entered a gas 

station, and robbed the cashier at gun point. The purpose of the robbery was to advance yet 

another illegal act: the purchase and consumption of illegal drugs. Petitioner and his codefendant disposed of the gun, masks, and other items of clothing that they were wearing on the 

day of the robbery, and they attempted to elude the police. Based on these facts, we find that a 

thirty-year term of incarceration is not offensive. Thus, we find no error in petitioner’s sentence. 
3

Second, the thirty-year sentence is not disproportionate given the nature of the offense, 

petitioner’s criminal history and risk of recidivism, as well as the impact statement of the victim. 

The penalty for first-degree robbery pursuant to West Virginia Code § 61–2–12(a)(1) is a term of 

incarceration of “not less than ten years.” Moreover, we find the sentence imposed to be in line 

with other sentences upheld by this Court.1 As such, we find no error in petitioner’s sentence. 

For the foregoing reasons, the circuit court’s June 27, 2014, sentencing order is hereby 

affirmed. 

Affirmed. 

ISSUED: October 20, 2015 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Chief Justice Margaret L. Workman 

Justice Robin Jean Davis 

Justice Brent D. Benjamin 

Justice Menis E. Ketchum 

Justice Allen H. Loughry II

                                                            

1

See State v. Tyler, 211 W.Va. 246, 565 S.E.2d 368 (2002) (upholding thirty-year 

sentence for first degree robbery involving use of firearm); State v. King, 205 W.Va. 422, 518 

S.E.2d 663 (1999) (approving defendant’s eighty-four year sentence after breaking into elderly 

woman’s home, threatening her with weapon, with previous criminal history); State v. Mann, 

205 W.Va. 303, 518 S.E.2d 60 (1999) (per curiam) (affirming thirty-year sentence for robbing 

store clerk at gun point).