STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
 

State of West Virginia, FILED 

Plaintiff Below, Respondent February 11, 2013 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS vs) No. 12-0139 (Harrison County 11-F-123) OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Deborah Nunley,
 

Defendant Below, Petitioner
 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner’s appeal, by counsel Jonathan Fittro, arises from the Circuit Court of Harrison 

County, wherein she was sentenced to consecutive terms of twenty years of incarceration and one 

to five years of incarceration following her conviction, by jury, of first degree robbery and 

conspiracy to commit first degree robbery. That order was entered on December 14, 2011. The 

State, by counsel Laura Young, 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. 

Following a robbery at Dry Cleaning World in Bridgeport, West Virginia, petitioner was 

indicted on one count of first degree robbery and one count of conspiracy to commit first degree 

robbery. After a two-day jury trial, petitioner was convicted of both counts and sentenced as 

outlined above. On appeal, petitioner alleges that the circuit court erred in admitting the testimony 

of witness Joseph Helms. According to petitioner, this witness recanted a statement regarding 

petitioner prior to trial. Petitioner also argues that the testimony elicited from Mr. Helms at trial 

was irrelevant and highly prejudicial. In response, the State argues that the witness’s testimony 

concerning the petitioner’s suspicious behavior at his home and her economic problems was 

relevant, probative, and properly admitted into evidence. 

“‘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, “‘[r]ulings on the admissibility of evidence are 

largely within a trial court’s sound discretion and should not be disturbed unless there has been an 

abuse of discretion.’ State v. Louk, 171 W.Va. 639, [643,] 301 S.E.2d 596, 599 (1983).” Syl. Pt. 1, 

State v. Kaufman, 227 W.Va. 537, 711 S.E.2d 607 (2011) (internal citations omitted). Upon our 

1
­
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

review, we find no abuse of discretion in the circuit court allowing the witness’s testimony over 

petitioner’s objection because the probative value outweighed the alleged unfair prejudice to 

petitioner. 

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

Affirmed. 

ISSUED: February 11, 2013 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Chief Justice Brent D. Benjamin 

Justice Robin Jean Davis 

Justice Margaret L. Workman 

Justice Allen H. Loughry II 

DISSENTING: 

Justice Menis E. Ketchum 

2
­