State v. Robinson: Re-Affirming the Limited Scope of Appellate Review over Statutorily-Bound Sentences and Jury Verdicts in West Virginia

1. Introduction

In State of West Virginia v. Marques Robinson (Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, 30 July 2025), the Court issued a memorandum decision that touches two recurring themes in West Virginia criminal jurisprudence:

The extremely deferential standard applied when a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a jury verdict; and
The narrow circumstances in which an appellate court will disturb a sentencing order that is (a) within statutory limits and (b) free from impermissible considerations.

Defendant-petitioner Marques Robinson, convicted of burglary, attempted suffocation, assault, battery and unlawful restraint, argued (i) that no rational jury could have convicted him on the first four counts, and (ii) that the trial court’s choice to run the felony sentences consecutively was excessive and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court summarily rejected both grounds and affirmed.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Sufficiency challenge: After reviewing the trial record in the light most favorable to the State, the Court found ample—often video-recorded—evidence from which a reasonable juror could convict on every contested element.
Sentencing challenge: Because the sentences (1–15 years for burglary; 1–3 years for attempted suffocation; shorter concurrent jail terms on the misdemeanors) were inside statutory boundaries and not influenced by impermissible factors such as race or socioeconomic status, the Court held them non-reviewable under State v. Goodnight, and not subject to proportionality analysis under Wanstreet v. Bordenkircher.
Result: Convictions and sentences were affirmed in full.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

State v. Guthrie, 194 W. Va. 657 (1995) – Cornerstone for sufficiency review; re-affirmed that appellate courts defer to any rational trier of fact.
State v. Stone, 229 W. Va. 271 (2012) – Supplied syllabus point restating the same standard, quoted almost verbatim.
State v. Juntilla, 227 W. Va. 492 (2011) – Offered the phrasing that the court must view evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution.
State v. Goodnight, 169 W. Va. 366 (1982) – Governs appellate review of sentences; unless based on impermissible factors or outside statutory limits, they stand.
Wanstreet v. Bordenkircher, 166 W. Va. 523 (1981) – Limits proportionality attacks to indeterminate-maximum or life-recidivist sentences.
State v. Allen, 208 W. Va. 144 (1999) – Clarifies that proportionality review is unnecessary when determinate sentences are imposed.
Statutory authorities: W. Va. Code §§ 61-3-11 (burglary); 61-2-9d (strangulation/suffocation); 61-2-9 (assault); 61-2-14g (unlawful restraint); 61-11-21 (consecutive vs concurrent).

Together, these authorities firmly shut the appellate door on Robinson’s arguments: the Court had no discretion under its own precedent and the statutes to disturb either the jury’s findings or the trial court’s sequencing of sentences.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

Viewing the Record: The Court meticulously restated testimony from the victim, police, 9-1-1 call records, and, importantly, body-worn camera and cellphone videos. Under the Guthrie-Stone framework, any contradictions in testimony or circumstantial nature of proof were jury matters, not appellate matters.
Element-by-Element Approach:
- Burglary: Entry without consent + intent to commit a crime = satisfied by evidence that Robinson pushed his way in and immediately battered the victim.
- Attempted Suffocation: Court emphasized that restricting normal breathing need not cause complete loss of breath; the victim testified to difficulty breathing and injury.
- Assault: Reasonable apprehension of immediate violence inferred from Robinson’s physical dominance, use of the word submit, and prior threats.
- Unlawful Restraint: Victim’s inability to leave until police intervened satisfied the statute.
Sentencing Discretion:
- West Virginia’s default rule is consecutive sentences (W. Va. Code § 61-11-21) unless the judge orders otherwise.
- No illegality or impermissible factor appeared; ergo, under Goodnight, the appellate court’s hands were tied.
- Proportionality jurisprudence (Wanstreet) applies only to open-ended or life sentences, neither of which were present.

3.3 Potential Impact of the Decision

Reinforces Judicial Economy: By issuing a memorandum decision, the Court signals that sufficiency-of-evidence and sentencing challenges lacking new legal questions will be dispatched without full oral argument, discouraging similar appeals absent novel issues.
Clarifies Suffocation Standard: Practitioners should note that even brief obstruction of breathing, accompanied by physical pain, suffices for felony attempted suffocation.
Sentencing Guidance: Trial courts are reminded that consecutive sentences are presumed; defendants who seek concurrency must give affirmative reasons, and failure of the judge to do so will rarely be grounds for reversal.
Victim-Recorded Evidence: The Court’s reliance on smartphone footage underscores its growing evidentiary weight in domestic-violence and sexual-assault prosecutions.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Memorandum Decision: A short appellate opinion, issued when the Court believes the law is settled and oral argument unnecessary. It carries full precedential value unless stated otherwise.
Sufficiency of the Evidence: The legal test asking whether any rational juror could convict, viewing the record most favorably to the State. It is not a re-trial—credibility and weight of evidence remain jury functions.
Consecutive vs. Concurrent Sentences: Consecutive: Served back-to-back. Concurrent: Served at the same time. West Virginia law (W. Va. Code § 61-11-21) presumes consecutiveness.
Proportionality Review: Constitutional safeguard against cruel and unusual punishment, generally triggered only when the legislature sets no maximum term or when a life-recidivist sentence is imposed.
Impermissible Sentencing Factor: A consideration such as race, gender, religion, or socioeconomic status. Presence of these factors would invalidate a sentence even if otherwise lawful.

5. Conclusion

State v. Robinson does not blaze new doctrinal ground; rather, it solidifies two fundamental principles:

West Virginia appellate courts will rarely disturb jury verdicts so long as some evidence exists for each element of the crime.
Sentences that (a) lie within statutory ranges and (b) are free from forbidden biases are effectively insulated from appellate proportionality or excessiveness attacks.

For practitioners, the take-home message is clear: arguments on appeal must either identify genuine legal novelty or demonstrate statutory or constitutional defects; mere disagreement with the jury or the trial judge’s discretionary call will not suffice. In domestic-violence and sexual-offense contexts, where testimonial credibility is frequently contested, corroborative digital evidence—body-cam, 9-1-1 recordings, cellphone video—remains pivotal. Finally, defendants seeking concurrent sentences should build a record of mitigating factors at sentencing, for the default statutory current flows toward consecutiveness.