State v. Norwood
| Decision Date | 30 May 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 17-0978,17-0978 |
| Citation | 832 S.E.2d 75,242 W.Va. 149 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Respondent v. Travis R. NORWOOD, Defendant Below, Petitioner |
Armstead, Justice:
Petitioner in the instant action and the defendant below, Travis Ray Norwood, (hereinafter, "Defendant Norwood"), was convicted by a jury of his peers on one count of delivery of a controlled substance – heroin – in violation of West Virginia Code § 60A-4-401(a) (2011). Following that conviction, pursuant to the provisions of West Virginia Code §§ 61-11-18 (2000) and 61-11-19 (1943), (hereinafter, collectively, "recidivist statute"),1 the State filed an "Information Regarding Sentencing," which alleged that Defendant Norwood had previously been convicted and sentenced, on two separate occasions, of felony offenses that were punishable by incarceration in a penitentiary.
A trial was then conducted pursuant to the procedures contained in West Virginia Code § 61-11-19 (1943), and Defendant Norwood was found by that jury to be the same person who was previously convicted of two prior felony offenses. Based upon that verdict, and the plain language of the recidivist statute, the circuit court sentenced Defendant Norwood to "imprisonment in the penitentiary of this State for the rest of his natural life,"2 on the predicate delivery of heroin charge.
In this appeal, Defendant Norwood raises three issues. First, he alleges the evidence was insufficient to sustain a guilty verdict on the delivery of heroin charge. Second, he argues that because he was on probation for his two prior felony convictions and he had not discharged either of those sentences, the circuit court’s sentence was illegal. Finally, Defendant Norwood alleges the sentence of life in prison, on the charge of delivery of heroin, violates the proportionality clause contained in Article III, Section 5 of the West Virginia Constitution.
Having considered the parties’ briefs and oral arguments, the submitted appendix record, and the pertinent authorities, we find no error. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, Defendant Norwood’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.
The facts adduced at trial, and necessary to sustain a conviction for delivery of a controlled substance, show that on June 1, 2016, Defendant Norwood sold heroin to a confidential informant, (hereinafter, "C.I.") cooperating with the Greenbrier Valley Drug and Violent Crime Task Force (hereinafter, "Task Force"). On that date, the C.I. contacted Defendant Norwood and made arrangements to purchase an eight-ball (3 ½ grams) of cocaine. After that conversation, the C.I. called Task Force member Sergeant Brian Baker of the Greenbrier County Sheriff’s Department. During this call, the C.I. informed Sergeant Baker that arrangements could be made to purchase cocaine from Defendant Norwood. Sergeant Baker advised the C.I. to set up the cocaine purchase. Following protocol established by the Task Force, the C.I. met with Sergeant Baker who searched both the C.I. and her car. Neither the C.I. had drugs or money on her person, nor did her car contain drugs or money.
At that time, Sergeant Baker provided to the C.I. $ 280 and placed clandestine audio and video recording devices in two locations in the C.I.’s car. After all was ready, the C.I. contacted Defendant Norwood to set up a meeting at the Pizza Hut in White Sulphur Springs to buy cocaine. Upon making these arrangements, the C.I. drove her car to the Pizza Hut, with Sergeant Baker following in his own vehicle. Sergeant Baker, parked at a distance, observed the C.I. pull into a parking spot located near the Pizza Hut.
Once the C.I. parked her car, Defendant Norwood exited the Pizza Hut and got into the C.I.’s car. For the first time, Defendant Norwood informed the C.I. he did not have any "powder," but he did have some "dog food." Defendant Norwood got out of the C.I.’s car and went back into the Pizza Hut. Once Defendant Norwood exited the C.I.’s car, the C.I. called Sergeant Baker and recounted her conversation with Defendant Norwood. Sergeant Baker testified the term "powder" is slang for cocaine, and the term "dog food" is slang for heroin. Sergeant Baker advised the C.I. to purchase the heroin.
Defendant Norwood reentered the C.I.’s car and was told by the C.I. that she wanted to buy the previously offered heroin. As Defendant Norwood did not have the heroin with him, the C.I. drove Defendant Norwood to his home in downtown White Sulphur Springs, where the C.I. gave $ 230 to Defendant Norwood. Defendant Norwood got out of the car and returned a short time later with a large bag of a substance believed by the C.I. to be heroin. Once in the C.I.’s car, Defendant Norwood poured some of that substance into a Pizza Hut receipt in the presence of the C.I. Defendant Norwood then gave the receipt containing the substance to the C.I., returned $ 9 of the $ 230 that had been given to him, and exited the car, taking the remainder of the large bag with him.
Following the purchase, the C.I. was debriefed by Sergeant Baker and, pursuant to protocol, Sergeant Baker again searched the C.I.’s car and person for other drugs and money. Finding none, Sergeant Baker retrieved the clandestine audio and video recording devices from the C.I.’s car, the substance that was purchased by the C.I., and $ 59 of the $ 280 that was given to the C.I. for the transaction.
After debriefing, the C.I. and Sergeant Baker parted ways. Sergeant Baker went to his office, where he field-tested the substance purchased by the C.I., and determined it to be heroin. Sergeant Baker processed the heroin into evidence and secured it in the locked, temporary evidence locker at the station. On June 13, 2016, Corporal Nathan Hersman of the West Virginia State Police removed the heroin from its temporary location, logged it into evidence, and placed it in the main evidence locker at the station. On June 16, 2016, Corporal Hersman removed the heroin out of the evidence locker and delivered it to the West Virginia State Police Forensics Lab in South Charleston, where it was further tested and confirmed to be heroin.
Defendant Norwood was indicted on October 4, 2016, on one count of delivery of heroin. On May 4, 2017, following a two-day trial, Defendant Norwood was convicted of that crime. During the trial, Defendant Norwood extensively cross-examined all prosecution witnesses – two police officers and the C.I. During closing argument, Defendant Norwood argued the police failed to establish the chain of custody and the evidence as a whole was insufficient to support his conviction.
Following Defendant Norwood’s conviction, the State filed its recidivist information on May 19, 2017, and, on September 25, 2017, Defendant Norwood was found by a jury to be the same person as had previously been convicted of two prior felonies. During the recidivist trial, Sergeant Baker testified Defendant Norwood was the same person who was twice previously sentenced to a penitentiary. The first prior conviction and sentence was for the felony offense of eluding police in Chesterfield County, Virginia, on October 28, 2008. The second prior conviction and sentence was for the felony offense of selling, giving, distributing, or possessing with the intent to sell, give, or distribute more than one-half ounce, but not more than five pounds of marijuana, in Alleghany County, Virginia, on February 1, 2016. The circuit court instructed the jury that the prior Virginia convictions constituted felonies "for which a penitentiary sentence could be imposed under the laws of the State of West Virginia." Having heard the evidence, the jury returned its verdict that Defendant Norwood was the same person who was previously convicted of two felony offenses.
After the jury’s verdict, the matter proceeded to the sentencing phase. There, the circuit court inquired of Defendant Norwood and his counsel if there was any argument regarding proportionality to be made. Hearing none, the circuit court found both the delivery of heroin conviction, as well as the prior felony conviction of eluding police, to be crimes of potential violence, and pursuant to the plain language of West Virginia Code § 61-11-18 (2000), sentenced Defendant Norwood to a term of life in the penitentiary.
Following entry of the circuit court’s sentencing order, Defendant Norwood filed this appeal.
Each assignment of error has a different standard of review. For sufficiency of the evidence, the standard is:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Costello
...of both of Mr. Costello's predicate drug convictions, we conclude that both involved the threat of violence. In State v. Norwood , 242 W. Va. 149, 832 S.E.2d 75 (2019), this Court looked at the nature of the drug at issue—heroin—in determining whether the crime carried an inherent risk of v......
-
Norwood v. Ames
...S.E.2d 75, 79 (2019). On May 30, 2019, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia (“SCAWV”) affirmed Petitioner's conviction and sentence. Id. On January 31, 2020, following request to extend time, Petitioner filed his petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.......
-
Norwood v. Ames
...S.E.2d 75, 79 (2019). On May 30, 2019, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia (“SCAWV”) affirmed Petitioner's conviction and sentence. Id. On January 31, 2020, following request to extend time, Petitioner filed his petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.......
-
State v. Horton
..."got in his car and drove away" from the police officer trying to arrest him on some outstanding warrants is unavailing. We determined in Norwood that police" is an offense that "clearly carries with it the risk of violence." Id. at 158, 832 S.E.2d at 84. In that case, the petitioner had be......