sentencing co-defendants, because consis ) (a sentence within statutory limits that is challenged as excessive is a plea for leniency that the court only reviews for abuse of discretion); People v. Alexander, 239 Ill. 2d 205, 940 N.E.2d 1062, 1066, 346 Ill. Dec. 458 (Ill. 2010); State v. Guidry, 79 So. 3d 1242, 1244 (La. App. 2011) (a trial court has wide discretion to impose a sentence within the range set by the legislature, and such sentence shall not be set aside absent manifest abuse of discretion); State v. Blackmon, 202 N.J. 283, 997 A.2d 194, 202 (N.J. 2010); State v. Overbey, 2010 SD 78, 790 N.W.2d 35, 40 (S.D. 2010);. 3 See also Salaz v. Gov’t of the V.I., 49 V.I. 546, 558 (D.V.I. App. Div. 2007); and Gov’t of the V.I. v. Martinez, 42 V.I. 146, 149 (D.V.I. App. Div. 1999) (<HOLDING>). 4 I also disagree that Superior Court Rule
holding that a sentence that falls within statutory limits is presumptively valid and will not be reversed absent a showing of improper procedure or abuse of discretion holding that rulings on admissibility of evidence are within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of that discretion holding that the admission or exclusion of evidence is within discretion of the trial court and that such determinations will not be disturbed on appeal absent clear abuse of discretion holding that a trial courts order in a probationrevocation proceeding will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion holding that a sentence imposed within statutory limits will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court