Graydon C. Ooten, Jr., Esq.                                  Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Esq.
Fayetteville, West Virginia                                    Attorney General
Attorney for Appellant                                            Dawn E. Warfield, Esq.
                                                                                 Deputy Attorney General
                                                                                 Charleston, West Virginia
                                                                                 Attorneys for Appellee

The Opinion of the Court was delivered PER CURIAM.
JUSTICE STARCHER concurs and reserves the right to file a concurring opinion.

        1.    “In reviewing the findings of fact and conclusions of law of a circuit court concerning an order on a motion made under Rule 35 of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure, we apply a three-pronged standard of review. We review the decision on the Rule 35 motion under an abuse of discretion standard; the underlying facts are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard; and questions of law and interpretations of statutes and rules are subject to a de novo review.” Syllabus Point 1, State v. Head, 198 W.Va. 298, 480 S.E.2d 507 (1996).

        2.    “Article III, Section 5 of the West Virginia Constitution, which contains the cruel and unusual punishment counterpart to the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, has an express statement of the proportionality principle: 'Penalties shall be proportioned to the character and degree of the offence.'” Syllabus Point 8, State v. Vance, 164 W.Va. 216, 262 S.E.2d 423 (1980).

        3.     “While our constitutional proportionality standards theoretically can apply to any criminal sentence, they are basically applicable to those sentences where there is either no fixed maximum set by statute or where there is a life recidivist sentence.” Syllabus Point 4, Wanstreet v. Bordenkircher, 166 W.Va. 523, 276 S.E.2d 205 (1981).         4.    “Sentences imposed by the trial court, if within statutory limits and if not based on some [im]permissible factor, are not subject to appellate review.” Syllabus Point 4, State v. Goodnight, 169 W.Va. 366, 287 S.E.2d 504 (1982).

Per Curiam:

        This case is before this Court upon appeal of a final order of the Circuit Court of Fayette County entered on April 25, 2001. Pursuant to that order, the appellant and defendant below, Donna Manley, was sentenced to a total of six-to-sixty years in the penitentiary after she pled guilty to six counts of forgery, six counts of uttering, one count of conspiracy to commit a felony, and one count of burglary.   (See footnote 1)  In this appeal, the appellant contends her sentence is disproportionate given the nature of the crimes she committed and the sentences imposed upon her co-defendants.    

        This Court has before it the petition for appeal, the entire record, and the briefs and argument of counsel. For the reasons set forth below, the final order is affirmed.

        On September 13, 2000, a Fayette County grand jury returned a 15-count indictment charging the appellant and an accomplice with one count of conspiracy to commit forgery, seven counts of forgery, and seven counts of uttering. On the same day, a second twenty-three-count indictment charged the appellant and her accomplice with one count of conspiracy to commit forgery and uttering, eleven counts of forgery, and eleven counts of uttering. All of these offenses allegedly occurred in March 2000, and involved eighteen checks totaling $524.92. Seven of the checks were allegedly written on the bank account of the appellant's ex-husband and the other eleven were written on accounts in the appellant's name.

        A third indictment, also returned on September 13, 2000, charged the appellant along with three other accomplices with one count of conspiracy to commit forgery, four counts of forgery, and four counts of uttering. A fourth indictment charged the same persons including the appellant with two counts of burglary and one count of grand larceny. It was alleged that these offenses occurred in July 1999, and that the appellant and her accomplices burglarized the home of the appellant's cousin, stealing a Sony Playstation, games, video tapes, jewelry and clothing. They also forged and uttered four checks belonging to the appellant's cousin in the total amount of $170.00.

        On October 27, 2000, the appellant entered into a plea agreement with the State whereby she agreed to plead guilty to five counts each of forgery and uttering under the first indictment; one count of conspiracy to commit forgery and one count each of forgery and uttering under the third indictment; and one count of burglary under the fourth indictment. In exchange for her plea, the State agreed to dismiss the remaining thirteen counts in those indictments and the second indictment in its entirety.   (See footnote 2)  It was further agreed that the State would not take any action regarding any other forgery and uttering charges against the appellant occurring up to the time of the plea. The appellant agreed to testify during the prosecution of her co-defendants and the State agreed to remain silent at the appellant's sentencing except for recommending concurrent sentences for all forgery and uttering charges.

        On February 27, 2001, the appellant appeared before the circuit court for sentencing. She requested probation, or alternatively, that she be given concurrent sentences on all charges. The appellant's request for probation was denied. By order entered on March 6, 2001, the circuit court sentenced the appellant to one-to-ten years in the penitentiary on each count of forgery and uttering, one-to-five years for conspiracy, and one-to-fifteen years for burglary. The court ordered that eight of the one-to-ten-year sentences for forgery and uttering be served consecutively. Essentially, the appellant was given an eight-to-eighty-year sentence.

        On March 22, 2001, the appellant filed a motion for reduction of her sentence based on the same grounds asserted in this appeal. Following a hearing, the circuit court granted the appellant's motion in part, and reduced the appellant's consecutive sentences on the forgery and uttering charges to six, giving the appellant a six-to-sixty-year sentence in the final order entered on April 25, 2001. This appeal followed.

        The only issue in this case is whether the appellant's sentence violates the proportionality principle set forth in Article III, Section 5 of the West Virginia Constitution. In Syllabus Point 8 of State v. Vance, 164 W.Va. 216, 262 S.E.2d 423 (1980), this Court observed that, “Article III, Section 5 of the West Virginia Constitution, which contains the cruel and unusual punishment counterpart to the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, has an express statement of the proportionality principle: 'Penalties shall be proportioned to the character and degree of the offence.'”

        In this case, the appellant contends that her amended sentence violates the proportionality principle given the character, nature, and degree of the offenses she committed. Further, the appellant asserts that her sentence is disproportionate when compared to the sentences given to her co-defendants.   (See footnote 4)  The appellant acknowledges that this Court has generally not applied the proportionality principle to sentences imposed under statutes with fixed maximum periods of incarceration, but she asserts that in this instance the proportionality principle is applicable.

        This Court has in fact held that, “While our constitutional proportionality standards theoretically can apply to any criminal sentence, they are basically applicable to those sentences where there is either no fixed maximum set by statute or where there is a life recidivist sentence.” Syllabus Point 4, Wanstreet v. Bordenkircher, 166 W.Va. 523, 276 S.E.2d 205 (1981). This Court explained in Wanstreet that:

        “[T]he robbery by violence statute is one of the few criminal statutes in our jurisdiction that enables the court to set a determinate sentence without reference to any statutory maximum limit. With the exception of the life recidivist statute discussed in State v. Vance, [164 W.Va. 216, 262 S.E.2d 423 (1980)], we do not believe that the disproportionality principle can have any significant application other than to this type of sentencing statute.”

166 W.Va. at 531-32, 276 S.E.2d at 211, quoting State v. Houston, 166 W.Va. 202, 209, 273 S.E.2d 375, 379 (1980).

        In this case, the circuit court sentenced the appellant for her convictions of forgery and uttering pursuant to W.Va. Code § 61-4-5 (1998).   (See footnote 5)  The appellant's sentences for conspiracy to commit a felony and burglary were imposed in accordance with W.Va. Code § 61-10-31 (1971)   (See footnote 6)  and W.Va. Code § 61-3-11 (1993),   (See footnote 7)  respectively. All of these statutes contain fixed maximum periods of incarceration and the sentences imposed by the circuit court were within those parameters. Although the circuit court ordered the appellant to serve six of her sentences consecutively, that decision was within the court's discretion. W.Va. Code § 61-11-21 (1923).   (See footnote 8)  See also State v. Fortner, 182 W.Va. 345, 364, 387 S.E.2d 812, 831 (1989). Accordingly, we find that the sentence imposed upon the appellant does not warrant application of constitutional proportionality standards.

        We further note that historically, this Court has not interfered with sentences which have been imposed within legislatively prescribed limits as long as the trial judge has not considered any impermissible factors. In that regard, this Court has held that, “Sentences imposed by the trial court, if within statutory limits and if not based on some [im]permissible factor, are not subject to appellate review.” Syllabus Point 4, State v. Goodnight, 169 W.Va. 366, 287 S.E.2d 504 (1982).

        The record in this case shows that the circuit court did not rely upon any impermissible factors in rendering the appellant's sentence. To the contrary, the circuit court noted that the appellant was hopelessly addicted to drugs, had a reputation in her community as a thief and a liar, and had failed to take care of her children.   (See footnote 9)  The court also noted that the appellant had been convicted of several minor offenses in three different counties and had failed to appear for arraignment in this case. Thus, we are unable to find that the circuit court abused its discretion in sentencing the appellant.   (See footnote 10)