Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
39 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1982–2025 8 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by West Virginia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Carricogreen2 sentences2021We find that petitioner’s argument that a defendant’s arrest or presentment before a magistrate triggers the three-term rule is contrary to Syllabus Point 4 of Carrico where we held, in pertinent part, that the three-term rule begins to run “subsequent to the ending of the term at which the indictment against [a defendant] is found” and that “[t]he term at which the indictment is returned is not to be counted in favor of the discharge of a defendant.” (emphasis added). 189 W. 5 West Virginia Code § 62-3-21 provides, in pertinent part: Every person charged by presentment or indictment with a fe 2021Va. 40 , 427 S.E.2d 474 (1993), we held that: “[i]t is the three-term rule, W.Va. | 3 | 11 |
Good v. Handlangreen2 sentences2016Pt. 1, Good v. Handlan, 176 W.Va. 145 , 342 S.E.2d 111 (1986).” On appeal, petitioner argues that the circuit court erred in denying her motion to dismiss the indictment based on a violation of the three-term rule and, as a result, in denying her speedy trial rights under the West Virginia Constitution. 2016Pt. 1, Good v. Handlan, 176 W.Va. 145 , 342 S.E.2d 111 (1986).” On appeal, petitioner argues that the circuit court erred in denying her motion to dismiss the indictment based on a violation of the three-term rule and, as a result, in denying her speedy trial rights under the West Virginia Constitution. | 2 | 10 |
State v. Fendergreen2 sentences2016This is in keeping with West Virginia Code § 61-3-21, which creates an exception to the three-term rule due to a defendant’s failure to appear, and the spirit of our prior holdings that grant an exception when a defendant “otherwise prevents a trial from being held.” Id. at 441, 268 S.E.2d at 121 , Syl. 2007See, State v. Fender, 165 W.Va. 440 , 268 S.E.2d 120 (1980), noting as follows concerning an alleged transgression of the three term rule under W. | 2 | 3 |
State Ex Rel . Spadafore v. Fox, Judgegreen2 sentences2020Va. 674, 679 , 186 S.E.2d 833, 836 (1972). 14 determinative that the three-term rule was not violated. 2016Spadafore v. Fox, 155 W.Va. 674 , 186 S.E.2d 833 (1972), this Court explained how the three-term rule should be applied: Under the provisions of [W.Va.] Code, 62-3-21, as amended, the three unexcused regular terms of court that must pass before an accused can be discharged from further prosecution are regular terms occurring subsequent to the ending of the term at which the indictment was returned. | 1 | 5 |
State v. Adkinsgreen2 sentences2021Va. 443 , 388 S.E.2d 316 (1989), to find that “the three-term rule . . . is activated by an indictment.” Id. at 541 , 390 S.E.2d at 12 . 8 Finally, in State v. Carter, 204 W. 2021Va. 443 , 388 S.E.2d 316 (1989), to find that “the three-term rule . . . is activated by an indictment.” Id. at 541 , 390 S.E.2d at 12 . 8 Finally, in State v. Carter, 204 W. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Cartergreen2 sentences2021Va. 491 , 513 S.E.2d 718 (1998), we clarified that it is not the return of the indictment—but the defendant’s arraignment on the indictment—that triggers the three-term rule. 2021Va. 443 , 388 S.E.2d 316 (1989), to find that “the three-term rule . . . is activated by an indictment.” Id. at 541 , 390 S.E.2d at 12 . 8 Finally, in State v. Carter, 204 W. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Crawfordgreen2 sentences1993Although we have long held that the prosecution may not use a nolle prose-qui to evade the three-term rule, State v. Crawford, 83 W.Va. 556 , 98 S.E. 615 (1919), the prosecution is entitled to reindict after a nolle prosequi if the prosecution can conduct the trial within the constraints of the three-term rule. 1993Although we have long held that the prosecution may not use a nolle prose-qui to evade the three-term rule, State v. Crawford, 83 W.Va. 556 , 98 S.E. 615 (1919), the prosecution is entitled to reindict after a nolle prosequi if the prosecution can conduct the trial within the constraints of the three-term rule. | 1 | 2 |
State Ex Rel. Erlewine v. Thompsongreen1 sentence2021Va. 714, 724-25 , 207 S.E.2d 105, 111 (1973) (Haden, J. dissenting) (noting that the Court has recognized an implicit suspension of the three-term rule when “it is impossible to try an accused where the trial court loses jurisdiction to an appellate court for tis [sic] consideration of a writ of error or certified question, the delay occasioned thereby being unavoidable.”). 5 was returned against Ms. Spencer. | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Cohen v. Manchingreen1 sentence2021Va. 525 , 336 S.E.2d 171 (1984) (“Undefined words and terms used in a legislative enactment will be given their common, ordinary and accepted meaning.”). 13 In response to Mr. Porter’s assertions in this case, the State claims that certain terms of court were excepted from operation of the three-term rule because of the application of the statutory exception pertaining to a witness being kept away due to sickness as a result of the closure of courts during these terms amidst the COVID-19 global pandemic. | 1 | 1 |
Ex parte Andersongreen2 sentences2021Va. at ___ , 94 S.E. at 33 (citation omitted). 2021Moreover, in so ruling, this Court clarified that, for calculation of the three-term rule, “[c]omplete terms, not merely partial ones, are contemplated.” Anderson, 81 W. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Drachmangreen2 sentences2021Va. 207 , 358 S.E.2d 603 (1987), we found that the defendant therein did not rely “upon the three-term rule . . . because its provisions were not triggered until his indictment[.]” Id. at 209 , 358 S.E.2d at 605 . 2021Va. 207 , 358 S.E.2d 603 (1987), we found that the defendant therein did not rely “upon the three-term rule . . . because its provisions were not triggered until his indictment[.]” Id. at 209 , 358 S.E.2d at 605 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Foddrellgreen1 sentence2020See State v. Foddrell, 165 W. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Biasgreen1 sentence2020See State v. Bias, 177 W. | 1 | 1 |
Taylor-Hurley v. Mingo County Board of Educationgreen2 sentences2016Indeed, given that Rule 7 permits misdemeanors to be charged by information, it would be absurd to conclude that the three-term rule is- not triggered upon the filing of an information. “[I]t is this Court’s duty ‘to avoid whenever possible a construction of a statute which leads to absurd, inconsistent, unjust or unreasonable results;’” Taylor-Hurley v. Mingo County Bd. of Educ., 209 W.Va. 780, 787 , 551 S.E.2d 702, 709 (2001) (quoting State v. Kerns, 183 W.Va. 130, 135 , 394 S.E.2d 532, 537 (1990)). 2016Indeed, given that Rule 7 permits misdemeanors to be charged by information, it would be absurd to conclude that the three-term rule is- not triggered upon the filing of an information. “[I]t is this Court’s duty ‘to avoid whenever possible a construction of a statute which leads to absurd, inconsistent, unjust or unreasonable results;’” Taylor-Hurley v. Mingo County Bd. of Educ., 209 W.Va. 780, 787 , 551 S.E.2d 702, 709 (2001) (quoting State v. Kerns, 183 W.Va. 130, 135 , 394 S.E.2d 532, 537 (1990)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kernsgreen2 sentences2016Indeed, given that Rule 7 permits misdemeanors to be charged by information, it would be absurd to conclude that the three-term rule is- not triggered upon the filing of an information. “[I]t is this Court’s duty ‘to avoid whenever possible a construction of a statute which leads to absurd, inconsistent, unjust or unreasonable results;’” Taylor-Hurley v. Mingo County Bd. of Educ., 209 W.Va. 780, 787 , 551 S.E.2d 702, 709 (2001) (quoting State v. Kerns, 183 W.Va. 130, 135 , 394 S.E.2d 532, 537 (1990)). 2016Indeed, given that Rule 7 permits misdemeanors to be charged by information, it would be absurd to conclude that the three-term rule is- not triggered upon the filing of an information. “[I]t is this Court’s duty ‘to avoid whenever possible a construction of a statute which leads to absurd, inconsistent, unjust or unreasonable results;’” Taylor-Hurley v. Mingo County Bd. of Educ., 209 W.Va. 780, 787 , 551 S.E.2d 702, 709 (2001) (quoting State v. Kerns, 183 W.Va. 130, 135 , 394 S.E.2d 532, 537 (1990)). | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hinchmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Mannsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ex parte Chalfantgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Carroll v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Berger v. Rozargreen | 1 | 1 |
| State Ex Rel. Boso v. Warmuthgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in West Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State Ex Rel. Shorter v. Hey
green
2 sentences2021Va. at —, — S.E.2d at —. 17 Id. 18 The parties do not argue that the occurrence of a trial in the April 2019 term should exclude that term from being counted for purposes of the three-term rule. 1986Shorter v. Hey, 170 W.Va. 249 , 294 S.E.2d 51 (1981), that it is the three-term rule, W.Va.Code, 62-3-21, which constitutes the legislative pronouncement of our speedy trial standard under Article III, Section 14 of the West Virginia Constitution: “Whereas W.Va.Code, 62-3-1, provides a defendant with a statutory right to a trial in the term of his indictment, it is W.Va.Code, 62-3-21, rather than W.Va.Code, 62-3-1, which is the legislative adoption or declaration of what ordinarily constitutes a speedy trial within the meaning of U.S. Const., amend. | 3 | 1986–2021 |
State Ex Rel. Webb v. Wilson
neutral
2 sentences2021Va. 443 , 388 S.E.2d 316 (1989), to find that “the three-term rule . . . is activated by an indictment.” Id. at 541 , 390 S.E.2d at 12 . 8 Finally, in State v. Carter, 204 W. 1990Webb v. Wilson, 182 W.Va. 538 , 390 S.E.2d 9 (1990), we discussed the question of whether the three-term rule could be avoided in a circuit court where an indictment had been dismissed due to irregularities in impaneling the grand jury. | 3 | 1990–2021 |
State v. Foddrell
green
2 sentences2020Va. 54 , 297 S.E.2d 829 (1982). 4. “‘It is the three-term rule, W. 2012While the order cites State v. El swick, 225 W.Va. 285 , 693 S.E.2d 38 (2010), it is in Syl. pt. 2 of State v. Foddrell, 171 W.Va. 54 , 297 S.E.2d 829 (1982), wherein we elaborate the following factors: “A determination of whether a defendant has been denied a trial without unreasonable delay requires consideration of four factors: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the defendant’s assertion of his rights; and (4) prejudice to the defendant. | 2 | 2012–2020 |
State of West Virginia v. Oscar Ross Combs, Sr.
green
2 sentences2023Va. 1 , ___, 875 S.E.2d 139 , 146 (2022) (citing Good, 176 W. 2023Similarly, “when the trial is continued to another term by an agreement of the parties, it does not count as an unexcused term for purposes of the three-term rule.” State v. Combs, 13 247 W. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Underwood
green
1 sentence2022State v. Underwood, 130 W. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State of West Virginia v. Paul C.
green
1 sentence2022Va. 329 , 338, 853 S.E.2d 569 , 576 (2020) (“In reviewing the three terms of court at issue, we need look no further than the March 2018 term of court, which we easily conclude was excused and, if we assume that the remaining two terms (the June and October 2017 terms) were unexcused, is determinative that the three-term rule was not violated.”). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State Ex Rel. Parsons v. Cuppett
green
1 sentence2021Va. 469 , 184 S.E.2d 616 (1971).”). 12 terms of court, which have not been excused from calculation of the three-term rule, have passed after the term in which Mr. Porter’s indictment was returned such that the State has violated Mr. Porter’s constitutional right to a speedy trial. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Youngblood
green
1 sentence2021Va. 20 , 650 S.E.2d 119 (2007). 3. “‘It is the three-term rule, W. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Lilly
green
2 sentences2016Here, petitioner waived and forfeited his right to appeal the three-term rule issue by failing to raise it prior to the entry of his guilty plea and by failing to enter a conditional guilty 6 plea that would have preserved the issue for appellate review.5 See State v. Legg, 207 W.Va. 686 , 690 n. 7, 536 S.E.2d 110 , 114 n. 7 (2000), relying on Justice Cleckley’s concurrence in State v. Lilly, 194 W.Va. 595 , 461 S.E.2d 101 (1995) (stating that “[w]hen a defendant unconditionally and voluntarily pleads guilty to an offense, the defendant generally waives nonjurisdictional objections to a circui 2016Here, petitioner waived and forfeited his right to appeal the three-term rule issue by failing to raise it prior to the entry of his guilty plea and by failing to enter a conditional guilty 6 plea that would have preserved the issue for appellate review.5 See State v. Legg, 207 W.Va. 686 , 690 n. 7, 536 S.E.2d 110 , 114 n. 7 (2000), relying on Justice Cleckley’s concurrence in State v. Lilly, 194 W.Va. 595 , 461 S.E.2d 101 (1995) (stating that “[w]hen a defendant unconditionally and voluntarily pleads guilty to an offense, the defendant generally waives nonjurisdictional objections to a circui | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Legg
green
2 sentences2016Here, petitioner waived and forfeited his right to appeal the three-term rule issue by failing to raise it prior to the entry of his guilty plea and by failing to enter a conditional guilty 6 plea that would have preserved the issue for appellate review.5 See State v. Legg, 207 W.Va. 686 , 690 n. 7, 536 S.E.2d 110 , 114 n. 7 (2000), relying on Justice Cleckley’s concurrence in State v. Lilly, 194 W.Va. 595 , 461 S.E.2d 101 (1995) (stating that “[w]hen a defendant unconditionally and voluntarily pleads guilty to an offense, the defendant generally waives nonjurisdictional objections to a circui 2016Here, petitioner waived and forfeited his right to appeal the three-term rule issue by failing to raise it prior to the entry of his guilty plea and by failing to enter a conditional guilty 6 plea that would have preserved the issue for appellate review.5 See State v. Legg, 207 W.Va. 686 , 690 n. 7, 536 S.E.2d 110 , 114 n. 7 (2000), relying on Justice Cleckley’s concurrence in State v. Lilly, 194 W.Va. 595 , 461 S.E.2d 101 (1995) (stating that “[w]hen a defendant unconditionally and voluntarily pleads guilty to an offense, the defendant generally waives nonjurisdictional objections to a circui | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Elswick
green
2 sentences2012While the order cites State v. El swick, 225 W.Va. 285 , 693 S.E.2d 38 (2010), it is in Syl. pt. 2 of State v. Foddrell, 171 W.Va. 54 , 297 S.E.2d 829 (1982), wherein we elaborate the following factors: “A determination of whether a defendant has been denied a trial without unreasonable delay requires consideration of four factors: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the defendant’s assertion of his rights; and (4) prejudice to the defendant. 2012While the order cites State v. El swick, 225 W.Va. 285 , 693 S.E.2d 38 (2010), it is in Syl. pt. 2 of State v. Foddrell, 171 W.Va. 54 , 297 S.E.2d 829 (1982), wherein we elaborate the following factors: “A determination of whether a defendant has been denied a trial without unreasonable delay requires consideration of four factors: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the defendant’s assertion of his rights; and (4) prejudice to the defendant. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Farley v. Kramer neutral | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Ex parte Dudley v. State
green
2 sentences2007In Dudley v. State, 55 W.Va. 472 , 47 S.E. 285 (1904), this Court examined the three- term rule with regard to a defendant who had been held in custody during three terms of court and explained as follows: The only excuse given for not trying the petitioner as required in this section is because he had been illegally recommitted to the penitentiary by order of the Governor. 2007In Dudley v. State, 55 W.Va. 472 , 47 S.E. 285 (1904), this Court examined the three- term rule with regard to a defendant who had been held in custody during three terms of court and explained as follows: The only excuse given for not trying the petitioner as required in this section is because he had been illegally recommitted to the penitentiary by order of the Governor. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Ex parte Bracey
green
2 sentences2007Id. at 72 , 95 S.E. at 595 . [2] Prior to amendments in 1975, Virginia utilized a three-term rule similar in structure to the statute in this state. 2007Id. at 72 , 95 S.E. at 595 . [2] Prior to amendments in 1975, Virginia utilized a three-term rule similar in structure to the statute in this state. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Damron
green
2 sentences2007Thus, the State complied with the three-term rule." 213 W.Va. at 13, 576 S.E.2d at 258 . 2007Thus, the State complied with the three-term rule.” 213 W.Va. at 13, 576 S.E.2d at 258 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State Ex Rel. Farley v. Kramer
green
2 sentences2007Farley v. Kramer, 153 W.Va. 159 , 169 S.E.2d 106 (1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 986 , 90 S.Ct. 482 , 24 L.Ed.2d 451 , this Court held that the state may reindict an accused for the same offenses upon which previous indictments were originally returned against an accused, when the original indictments were dismissed as void within the time constraints of the three-term rule. 2007Farley v. Kramer, 153 W.Va. 159 , 169 S.E.2d 106 (1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 986 , 90 S.Ct. 482 , 24 L.Ed.2d 451 , this Court held that the state may reindict an accused for the same offenses upon which previous indictments were originally returned against an accused, when the original indictments were dismissed as void within the time constraints of the three-term rule. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State Ex Rel. Stines v. Locke green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Bush green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State Ex Rel. May v. Boles green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Brent v. Board of Trustees of Davis & Elkins College green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| State v. Walters green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| State Ex Rel. McCormick v. Hall red | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| State v. Holland green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| State v. Harren green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| State v. Wilson green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| State v. Ward green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Scott v. State green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| State ex rel. Holstein v. Casey green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| State v. Hudson green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.