State v. Chester, 18-0140
| Decision Date | 15 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 18-0140,18-0140 |
| Parties | State of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Respondent v. Robert Anthony Chester, Defendant Below, Petitioner |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Petitioner Robert Anthony Chester, by counsel Jeremy B. Cooper, appeals the Circuit Court of Taylor County's January 23, 2018, orders sentencing him to an effective term of 182 to 200 years of incarceration following his convictions of burglary, first-degree robbery, and conspiracy. The State of West Virginia, by counsel Caleb A. Ellis, filed a response in support of the circuit court's orders. Petitioner filed a reply. On appeal, petitioner argues that the circuit court erred in (1) sentencing him to a constitutionally disproportionate sentence, (2) denying his motion for disqualification, (3) granting the State a continuance, (4) admitting evidence of his flight from law enforcement, (5) denying his post-trial motions, and (6) failing to ensure his trial was held in compliance with the "one-term rule." Petitioner also argues that the circuit court plainly erred in failing to give a Caudill1 limiting instruction to the jury and erred cumulatively to his prejudice.
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.
Factual and Procedural Background
Petitioner and his codefendant, Michael Ketterman, planned to rob the home of two sisters, Trina Rager and Tina Wilfong, on August 21, 2016, in Taylor County, West Virginia. En route to the robbery, petitioner and Mr. Ketterman stopped at Walmart to buy supplies such as zip ties, gloves, duct tape, and batteries for petitioner's laser sight to his Glock 9 mm pistol. After leaving Walmart, the men proceeded to the victims' home and donned masks; petitioner forced their entry through a back door.
The men entered the house and found Ms. Rager asleep on the couch. Mr. Ketterman awoke Ms. Rager and put zip ties around her hands. As soon as Mr. Ketterman spoke, Ms. Rager recognized his voice, as they had known each other for several years. Petitioner then entered the bedroom and found Ms. Wilfong asleep. He awoke Ms. Wilfong by pointing a gun in her face, stated that he was the police, and then put zip ties around her hands. Petitioner dragged Ms. Wilfong by her neck through the home while keeping his gun trained at her head and dropped her in a mudroom, causing her to break her leg in three places.
The two men then led Ms. Rager to an outbuilding where the victims kept their safes. After reaching the building, Mr. Ketterman struck Ms. Rager, held a knife to her throat, and instructed her to open one of the safes. Ms. Rager stated that the combination was written down on a piece of paper inside the home. Petitioner put the gun in Ms. Rager's mouth and instructed her to open the safe, and she complied. While petitioner and Mr. Ketterman were distracted with the safe's contents, Ms. Rager escaped and ran to another sister's home to call for help. Mr. Ketterman and petitioner fled at that time.
Days later, after encouragement from his son, Mr. Ketterman surrendered to the police. Petitioner, however, evaded police and eventually led officers on a high-speed car chase. He was ultimately apprehended on August 29, 2016.
On September 12, 2016, petitioner was indicted for one count of burglary, one count of grand larceny, two counts of first-degree robbery, two counts of wanton endangerment involving a firearm, one count of persons prohibited from possessing firearms, two counts of malicious assault, and one count of conspiracy to commit a felony. Petitioner's trial was scheduled to begin in March of 2017, but was continued for unknown reasons. Later in March, petitioner's counsel changed employment and petitioner was granted new counsel. On April 30, 2017, petitioner filed a motion requesting that the circuit court continue his trial, which was scheduled for May 15, 2017, until the next term. The circuit court continued the trial, but to a date later in the same term.
In June of 2017, the State filed a motion requesting to admit evidence regarding petitioner's flight from police and his statements made at that time. At the hearing on the motion, the circuit court heard the testimony of several law enforcement officers, including officers from the Taylor County Sheriff's Department, the Marion County Sheriff's Department, the Fairmont Police Department, the United States Marshals Service, and a parole officer. The evidence established that officers from Taylor County collaborated with officers from Marion County to locate petitioner following the robbery. Officers were able to contact petitioner through his girlfriend and inform him that officers from Taylor County wished to speak to him. Petitioner denied involvement in any crimes that had occurred in Taylor County. Petitioner's parole officer also contacted petitioner and informed him that a warrant had been issued for his arrest due to parole violations. Petitioner declined to turn himself in and was only apprehended and arrested after the high-speed car chase.
The circuit court determined that the evidence regarding petitioner's flight and his statements were admissible. The circuit court found that, after having been informed by hisparole officer of the warrant for his arrest, "[petitioner] was aware of a potential parole violation based in part on the Taylor County warrant and the [petitioner] began fleeing from law enforcement." As such, the evidence of petitioner's flight indicated a guilty conscience or knowledge, or under the circumstances, would indicate a desire to escape to avoid prosecution due to that guilty conscience or knowledge.
On July 10, 2017, one day before petitioner's trial was scheduled to begin, the circuit court held a hearing on the State's motion to continue based upon the collapse of plea negotiations with Mr. Ketterman, who was set to testify against petitioner as part of the agreement.2 The circuit court granted the State's motion over petitioner's general objection to the continuance as he was prepared for trial the next day. Mr. Ketterman eventually pled guilty via a plea agreement and the trial was ultimately scheduled for October 10, 2017.
The circuit court held a pretrial hearing in September of 2017. Petitioner moved the court to reduce his bond and dismiss the case. The circuit court denied the motions. Shortly before trial was to begin, petitioner filed a motion to disqualify the circuit court judge on the basis of judicial bias, disqualifying relationships with the victims and/or their family, and the fact that the judge directly supervised the special prosecutor's wife through the Taylor County Probation Office. Immediately prior to trial, the circuit court denied the motion, finding that it was not timely filed and was not meritorious. Specifically, the circuit court stated it had no personal or professional knowledge of the victims, and further indicated that it had isolated the special prosecutor's wife from any involvement in the case.
Petitioner's trial commenced on October 10, 2017. On October 12, 2017, petitioner was found guilty of the four remaining crimes charged: two counts of first-degree robbery, one count of burglary, and one count of conspiracy to commit a felony.3 Because the State intended to file a recidivist information against petitioner, the circuit court deferred sentencing on petitioner's burglary conviction and only sentenced him to ninety years of incarceration for each of his robbery convictions and not less than one nor more than five years of incarceration for his conspiracy to commit a felony conviction. After the State dismissed the recidivist information, the circuit court sentenced petitioner to not less than one nor more than fifteen years of incarceration for his burglary conviction. The circuit court ordered that the sentences be served consecutively. Petitioner's sentences were memorialized in the circuit court's orders dated January 23, 2018. It is from these orders that petitioner appeals.
Discussion
On appeal, petitioner first assigns as error the circuit court's order sentencing him to ninety years of incarceration for each of his robbery convictions. According to petitioner, the sentences are unconstitutionally disproportionate to the crimes for which he was convicted. Moreover, petitioner argues that his sentences are extremely disparate to those of his codefendant, Mr. Ketterman, who entered a plea agreement and was sentenced to twenty years and eighty years for his respective robbery convictions.4 We disagree.
We have held that Syl. Pt. 3, State v. Georgius, 225 W. Va. 716, 696 S.E.2d 18 (2010). However, "[s]entences imposed under statutes providing no upper limits may be contested based upon allegations of violation of the proportionality principles contained in Article III, Section 5 of the West Virginia Constitution." State v. Tyler, 211 W. Va. 246, 250, 565 S.E.2d 368, 372 (2002) (citation omitted). Because our first-degree robbery statute contains no upper limit, the Court will undertake a proportionality analysis in this matter. See W. Va. Code § 61-2-12 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial