1

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

State of West Virginia, 

Plaintiff Below, Respondent 

vs.) No. 21-0248 (Harrison County 19-F-195)

Malik Corbin Christopher Edler,

Defendant Below, Petitioner 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Malik Corbin Christopher Edler, by counsel George J. Cosenza, appeals from 

the Circuit Court of Harrison County’s March 8, 2021, sentencing order. The State of West 

Virginia, by counsel Patrick Morrisey and Scott E. Johnson, filed a response in support of the 

circuit court’s order. 

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 order of the circuit court is appropriate under Rule 21 of 

the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Petitioner was indicted by the Harrison County Grand Jury and was charged with 

possession with the intent to deliver a controlled substance, marijuana; first-degree robbery;

malicious assault; assault during the commission of a felony or attempt to commit a felony; two 

counts of use or presentation of a firearm during commission of a felony; and murder. On 

November 9, 2020, petitioner pled guilty to possession with intent to deliver a controlled 

substance; unlawful assault, a lesser included offense of malicious assault; use or presentation of 

a firearm during the commission of a felony; and voluntary manslaughter, a lesser included offense 

of murder. At the plea hearing, the court inquired of petitioner about the events that gave rise to 

the plea agreement:

PETITIONER: On the unlawful assault, I struck Samantha [Bailey] with the 

intent to injure her.

THE COURT: What did you strike her with?

FILED

May 26, 2022

EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA
2

PETITIONER: A firearm. And, then I shot and killed Mr. Rex Bailey with 

a firearm.

THE COURT: What about the possession with intent to deliver the 

controlled substance, the marijuana?

PETITIONER: I had some weed, some marijuana, and I possessed it in my 

house with the intent to deliver it.

THE COURT: What about the $650.00? [Defense Counsel]: [T]hat’s Count 

Five. 

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Count Five, Your Honor, is the presentation of a 

firearm regarding unlawful assault.

THE COURT: No, Count Five is the use or presentation of a firearm during 

the commission of the felony offense of robbery.

PETITIONER: I took the money from [the minor S.S.] with a firearm.

THE COURT: [Defense Counsel], are you aware of any affirmative defense 

your client would have to any of these charges for which he’s entered a plea of 

guilty?

DEFENSE COUNSEL: No.

The State also proffered its proof in support of petitioner’s guilty pleas. Specifically, the 

State proffered that it would have offered testimony that a drug deal was set up with petitioner on 

March 7, 2019, to deliver marijuana and that petitioner possessed the marijuana. Further, the State 

informed the court that Samantha Bailey would have testified that petitioner pistol-whipped her 

with a firearm and that she required medical treatment, including staples to her head, as a result of 

the incident. The State also proffered that it would rely on the testimony of the minor, S.S., the 

victim of the robbery, who would testify that petitioner presented a firearm and took money from 

him. Per the State’s proffer, the physical evidence included six spent shell casings. Further, the 

State indicated that it would provide testimony from the medical examiner, as well as petitioner’s 

admission to shooting Rex Bailey.

The court’s acceptance of petitioner’s guilty pleas was held in abeyance while the court 

sought responses from the parties about one of the charges. On January 25, 2021, the court held a 

hearing on petitioner’s plea agreement and sentencing. Petitioner advised the court that he wished 

to withdraw his guilty pleas. Ultimately, the court denied petitioner’s oral motion finding, among 

other reasons, that “the defendant did not set forth a fair and just reason for the withdrawal of his 

guilty pleas” and that “the defendant had been advised at the plea hearing of the possible maximum 

penalties and consequences for each of the offense[s] in which he entered guilty pleas.”
3

The court sentenced petitioner to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of not less than 

one year nor more than five years, with 674 days of credit for days previously served, for the

possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance charge, as contained in count one of the 

indictment; to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of not less than one year nor more than five 

years for unlawful assault, as contained in count three of the indictment, with the term to run 

consecutively to count one; to a determinate term of seven years in prison for the use or 

presentation of a firearm during the commission of a felony, as contained in count five of the 

indictment, with the term to run consecutively to the term of count three; and to a determinate term 

of fifteen years in prison for voluntary manslaughter, with the term to run consecutively to count 

five. At the sentencing hearing, the court noted that a lesser sentence or alternative sentence was 

not warranted in this case because “the defendant had received numerous benefits in the plea 

agreement and the seriousness of the offenses.” 

Petitioner appeals from the March 8, 2021, sentencing order. On appeal, petitioner argues 

that his sentence violates the proportionality principle contained in the West Virginia Constitution. 

Respondent maintains that petitioner’s claim of a constitutionally disproportionate sentence fails 

since his sentence was within the sentencing limitations for the crimes for which he pled guilty 

and his sentence was not enhanced pursuant to a recidivist statute. 

We have consistently maintained that our review of sentencing orders is limited. We review 

sentencing orders “under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, unless the order violates 

statutory or constitutional commands.” Syl. Pt. 1, in part, State v. Adams, 211 W. Va. 231, 565 

S.E.2d 353 (2002) (citation omitted). “Sentences imposed by the trial court, if within statutory 

limits and if not based on some [im]permissible factor, are not subject to appellate review.” Syl. 

Pt. 4, State v. Goodnight, 169 W. Va. 366, 287 S.E.2d 504 (1982). “It is not the proper prerogative 

of this Court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court on sentencing matters, so long as 

the appellant’s sentence was within the statutory limits, was not based upon any impermissible 

factors, and did not violate constitutional principles.” State v. Georgius, 225 W. Va. 716, 722, 696 

S.E.2d 18, 24 (2010).

Petitioner asserts that his sentence was disproportionate to the crimes he committed 

pursuant to Article III, § 5 of the West Virginia Constitution. We have held that “[w]hile our 

constitutional proportionality standards theoretically can apply to any criminal sentence, they are 

basically applicable to those sentences where there is either no fixed maximum set by statute or 

where there is a life recidivist sentence.” Syl. Pt. 4, Wanstreet v. Bordenkircher, 166 W. Va. 523, 

276 S.E.2d 205 (1981). Here, all of the offenses that petitioner pled guilty to contained sentencing 

limits and the circuit court sentenced petitioner within those limits. Moreover, petitioner was not 

sentenced pursuant to a recidivist statute. Finally, we are not persuaded by petitioner’s argument 

that his sentence “shocks the consciousness” where he was sentenced within the sentencing 

guidelines to offenses to which he pled guilty. Thus, we refuse to disturb his sentences on appeal.

Petitioner also claims that the circuit court erroneously denied him classification as a 

youthful offender, considering that he had no significant criminal history, that he fully cooperated 

with law enforcement, and he was a model prisoner. This Court reviews the circuit court’s decision 
4

to deny youthful offender status to a petitioner only for abuse of discretion.1 Here, the court 

declined to grant petitioner youthful offender status due to the seriousness of petitioner’s offenses, 

which included the shooting death of one person and the serious injury to another, and the 

numerous benefits petitioner received as part of his plea agreement. Thus, we refuse to find that 

the court abused its discretion in declining to grant petitioner youthful offender status.

Petitioner also claims that the circuit court erred in ruling that his sentences should be 

served consecutively, instead of concurrently. However, the default rule in West Virginia is that 

sentences are to run consecutively. See, e.g. State v. Marcum, 238 W. Va. 26, 32, 792 S.E.2d 37, 

43 (2016). Accordingly, we decline to disturb this ruling on appeal.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

Affirmed.

ISSUED: May 26, 2022

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Chief Justice John A. Hutchison 

Justice Elizabeth D. Walker

Justice Tim Armstead

Justice William R. Wooton

NOT PARTICIPATING:

Justice C. Haley Bunn

1 We have noted that 

a circuit court may suspend the imposition of sentencing any young adult who was 

convicted of or pled guilty to a felony under the provisions of the Act. When this 

occurs, the young adult offenders are instead assigned to a young adult offenders 

facility. “Classification of an individual as a youthful offender rests within the 

sound discretion of the circuit court.” State v. Allen, 208 W.Va. 144, 157, 539 

S.E.2d 87, 100 (1999). When deciding whether to sentence a criminal defendant as 

a young adult offender, the circuit court should consider the defendant’s 

background and prospects for rehabilitation. State v. Herman, 161 W.Va. 371, 376, 

242 S.E.2d 559, 561 (1978).

State v. Brewster, 213 W.Va. 227, 229, 579 S.E.2d 715, 717 (2003).