Court Opinion

ID: 9927778
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-29 22:44:21.412588+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:17.713781
License: Public Domain

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
                           SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                    FILED
                                                                                January 25, 2024
State of West Virginia,                                                           C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK
Plaintiff Below, Respondent                                                     SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                     OF WEST VIRGINIA

vs.) No. 22-794 (Berkeley County CC-02-2021-F-245)

Isaiah Lee,
Defendant Below, Petitioner

                              MEMORANDUM DECISION

        Petitioner Isaiah Lee appeals the order entered by the Circuit Court of Berkeley County on
September 22, 2022, sentencing him to a determinate term of three years in the penitentiary for
possession of a firearm by a prohibited person in violation of West Virginia Code § 61-7-7(a)
[2016].1 Petitioner contends that the circuit court abused its discretion by sentencing him to a term
of incarceration when an alternative sentence of probation or home incarceration would have been
more appropriate. Upon our review, finding no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error,
we determine that oral argument is unnecessary and that a memorandum decision affirming the
circuit court’s order is appropriate. See W. Va. R. App. P. 21(c).

        Petitioner was indicted in October 2021 for the felony offenses of unlawful possession of
a firearm by a prohibited person, conspiracy to deliver controlled substances, and possession with
intent to deliver synthetic cathinones. Petitioner pled guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm by
a prohibited person, and the State dismissed the remaining charges.

        Petitioner argued for an alternative sentence, and the circuit court denied his request for
several reasons including petitionerʼs lengthy criminal history (as well as 23 criminal charges that
were not prosecuted); a prior 2006 handgun charge in Frederick County, Maryland, that was not
pursued; a 2010 felony conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine for which
petitioner received probation that he twice violated, prompting his return to probation; petitionerʼs
convictions in 2012 for possession of heroin and driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle
while impaired by alcohol for which petitioner was placed on probation, which he violated, and
then was returned to probation; and charges of leaving the scene with damage, failure to exchange

       1
         Petitioner appears by Robert C. Stone Jr., and the State appears by Attorney General
Patrick Morrisey and Assistant Attorney General Ronald T. Goudy.

                                                 1
information, improper use of evidence of registration, and displaying an expired registration that
petitioner acquired during the pendency of the underlying criminal case. The circuit court also
found petitioner was dishonest about his drug usage and that he misrepresented his ability to refrain
from getting into any additional legal trouble during the underlying case.

        On appeal, petitioner contends in his lone assignment of error that the circuit court erred
in denying his request for an alternative sentence. In our review of the circuit courtʼs sentencing
order, we employ 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). Furthermore, “[p]robation is a matter of grace and not a matter of right.” Syl. Pt. 1, State
v. Rose, 156 W. Va. 342, 192 S.E.2d 884 (1972). “The decision of a trial court to deny probation
will be overturned only when, on the facts of the case, that decision constituted a palpable abuse
of discretion.” Syl. Pt. 2, State v. Shafer, 168 W. Va. 474, 284 S.E.2d 916 (1981).

        The circuit court went to great lengths to set forth on the record its reasoning for the
sentence imposed upon the petitioner. The circuit court believed the three-year sentence was
appropriate for the aforementioned reasons and because of petitionerʼs acceptance of some
responsibility by entering into a plea agreement and by forfeiting seized monies. Under these facts,
it cannot be said that the circuit court palpably abused its discretion in denying petitioner an
alternative sentence. Accordingly, we find no merit to this assignment of error.

       For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

                                                                                     Affirmed.

ISSUED: January 25, 2024

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Justice Tim Armstead
Justice Elizabeth D. Walker
Justice John A. Hutchison
Justice William R. Wooton
Justice C. Haley Bunn

                                                 2