STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
 

State of West Virginia, 

Plaintiff Below, Respondent 

FILED 

February 11, 2013 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

vs) No. 11-1789 (Jefferson County 11-F-8) OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Shane M. Dodson, 

Defendant Below, Petitioner 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner’s appeal, by counsel Sherman L. Lambert Sr., arises from the Circuit Court of 

Jefferson County, wherein he was sentenced to a recidivist life sentence and one year of 

incarceration, said sentences to run consecutively, following his convictions for daytime burglary 

and domestic battery. That order was entered on June 8, 2011. The State, by counsel Brandon 

C.H. Sims, 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 Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. 

On April 6, 2011, petitioner was convicted by jury of one count of daytime burglary and 

one count of domestic battery. The following day, the State filed a recidivist information alleging 

that petitioner had twice previously been convicted of qualifying felony offenses and therefore 

was subject to an enhanced sentence. Petitioner acknowledged his identity as the person identified 

therein on May 23, 2011. By order entered on June 8, 2011, the circuit court denied petitioner’s 

motion for a new trial and sentenced him to a term of life in prison following his conviction for 

daytime burglary and the recidivist information, as well as one year of incarceration for his 

conviction of domestic battery, said sentences to run consecutively. 

“‘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, 

“[u]pon motion to direct a verdict for the defendant, the evidence is to be viewed 

in light most favorable to prosecution. It is not necessary in appraising its 

sufficiency that the trial court or reviewing court be convinced beyond a 

1
­
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendant; the question is whether there is 

substantial evidence upon which a jury might justifiably find the defendant guilty 

beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. West, 153 W.Va. 325, 168 S.E.2d 716 (1969). 

Syl. Pt. 1, State v. Rogers, 209 W.Va. 348, 574 S.E.2d 910 (2001) (internal citations omitted). 

Lastly, 

“[a] criminal defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support a 

conviction takes on a heavy burden. An appellate court must review all the 

evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, in the light most favorable to the 

prosecution and must credit all inferences and credibility assessments that the jury 

might have drawn in favor of the prosecution. The evidence need not be 

inconsistent with every conclusion save that of guilt so long as the jury can find 

guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Credibility determinations are for a jury and not 

an appellate court. Finally, a jury verdict should be set aside only when the record 

contains no evidence, regardless of how it is weighed, from which the jury could 

find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To the extent that our prior cases are 

inconsistent, they are expressly overruled.” Syllabus Point 3, State v. Guthrie, 194 

W.Va. 657, 461 S.E.2d 163 (1995). 

Syl. Pt. 2, State v. Ladd, 210 W.Va. 413, 557 S.E.2d 820 (2001). 

On appeal, petitioner alleges that it was error to deny his motion for a new trial and that 

the prosecuting attorney committed misconduct. In support, he alleges that the record contains no 

evidence from which a jury could find his guilt on the burglary count beyond a reasonable doubt. 

He further argues that the prosecuting attorney committed conspiracy to elicit testimony from an 

witness who was intoxicated during the trial. In response, the State argues that multiple witnesses 

presented testimony sufficient to support petitioner’s conviction for daytime burglary, and further 

that petitioner cites to no facts or law to support his arguments that an allegedly intoxicated 

witness affected his substantial rights. 

Upon our review, we find no error by the circuit court in denying petitioner’s motion for a 

new trial. As the State notes, the circuit court was presented with multiple witnesses that satisfied 

the necessary elements of daytime burglary. Further, petitioner based his motion for a new trial 

below on allegations of an intoxicated witness, and the circuit court found the evidence 

insufficient. We also find that petitioner has failed to establish that any prosecutorial misconduct 

occurred in regard to eliciting testimony from this witness. 

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

Affirmed. 

2
­
 

 

 

 

 

 

ISSUED: February 11, 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 

3