Background
On September 24, 2020, Connor Crowe, then 13 years old, shot and killed his mother and 15-year-old sister. The State initially filed a juvenile delinquency petition alleging first-degree murder. After mental health evaluations found Crowe competent, the State moved to transfer the case to adult criminal jurisdiction, which the court granted in April 2022.
Crowe agreed to plead guilty to two counts of second-degree murder if transferred to adult jurisdiction. He entered guilty pleas in November 2022. Three comprehensive mental health evaluations were completed: one diagnosed him with mild autism spectrum disorder; another found no autism; and a third was equivocal. The evaluators agreed Crowe understood his conduct was wrong and that he posed elevated risk factors for dangerousness, exhibiting low empathy and remorse only for being caught.
At the May 30, 2023 sentencing hearing, the circuit court adopted the presentence investigation report (which addressed statutory mitigating factors), heard testimony from a child psychiatrist and detention center staff, received statements from family members, and reviewed a letter from Crowe himself. The court sentenced him to two consecutive 40-year terms.
The Court’s Holding
The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the 80-year sentence. The court held that the circuit court properly discharged its statutory duty to consider the mitigating circumstances enumerated in West Virginia Code § 61-11-23(c) when sentencing a juvenile transferred to adult jurisdiction. The trial court satisfied this requirement by explicitly directing the probation officer to address the statutory factors, adopting those findings on the record, mentioning Crowe’s age multiple times during the hearing, and extensively discussing his mental health evaluations, intellectual capacity, empathy deficits, capacity for rehabilitation, and lack of observed abuse.
The court rejected Crowe’s disproportionality argument, holding that appellate proportionality review applies only to sentences without a fixed statutory maximum or life sentences without parole eligibility. Because second-degree murder carries a fixed 10-to-40-year maximum and Crowe received two consecutive sentences within that range, the sentence was not subject to proportionality review. The court distinguished Miller v. Alabama (which prohibited mandatory life without parole for juvenile offenders) as inapplicable, since Crowe received a definite 80-year sentence, not a life sentence without possibility of parole.
Key Takeaways
- Trial courts need not address each statutory mitigating factor by name or quote the statute, but must demonstrate awareness of the requirement and place consideration on the record or in the sentencing order.
- Proportionality review under West Virginia Constitution Article III, Section 5 applies only to sentences with no fixed statutory maximum or life sentences without parole eligibility.
- Miller v. Alabama does not bar lengthy definite sentences for juveniles; it prohibits only mandatory life without parole for juvenile offenders.
- A trial court’s adoption of a presentence investigation report that addresses statutory factors, combined with on-the-record discussion, satisfies the statutory requirement to consider mitigating circumstances.
Why It Matters
This decision provides guidance on sentencing procedures for juveniles transferred to adult criminal jurisdiction. Although West Virginia requires consideration of specific mitigating factors, the opinion makes clear that trial courts have substantial discretion in how they weigh those factors against the severity of the crime and the offender’s criminal responsibility. The court’s deference to the trial judge’s factual findings—including findings that Crowe lacked remorse, exhibited low empathy, and posed a danger to those around him—reinforces that age alone does not mandate leniency.
For defense practitioners and juvenile justice advocates, the decision narrows the scope of proportionality challenges for transferred juveniles in West Virginia. Because statutory maximum sentences receive only deferential abuse-of-discretion review, appellate relief on disproportionality grounds is unlikely absent a life sentence without parole. The opinion does not foreclose challenges based on impermissible sentencing factors, but it does limit the tool of proportionality review in cases involving substantial crimes and transferred jurisdiction.