State of West Virginia v. Kenneth Ray Buskirk

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the denial of Kenneth Ray Buskirk’s Rule 35(b) motion for reduction of sentence. The court held that his claims concerning the plea agreement, sentencing, alleged prosecutorial misconduct, and advice regarding withdrawal of his pleas were challenges to his conviction or sentence that exceeded the scope of a Rule 35(b) motion. The court concluded that such claims should be raised through a timely direct criminal appeal.

Holdings

1. Rule 35(b) authorizes only a reduction in sentence and is not a mechanism for challenging a conviction or the validity of the sentence imposed. Because Buskirk's claims challenged his plea, alleged breaches of the plea agreement, statements at sentencing, and the validity of his sentence rather than seeking discretionary leniency, those claims were outside the scope of Rule 35(b) and were not properly before the Court.
2. The circuit court's denial of Buskirk's Rule 35(b) motion did not present substantial legal error or prejudicial error and was affirmed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a Rule 35(b) motion for reduction of sentence may be used to challenge the validity of a guilty plea, alleged breaches of the plea agreement, alleged perjury at sentencing, or the validity of the sentence imposed.
2. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by denying Buskirk's Rule 35(b) motion.

Disposition

affirmed