section 5 proportionality principle found in West Virginia

2019Va. 216 , 262 S.E.2d 423 (1980).” This Court has previously held: In determining whether a given sentence violates the proportionality principle found in Article III, Section 5 of the West Virginia Constitution, consideration is given to the nature of the offense, the legislative purpose behind the punishment, a comparison of the punishment with what would be inflicted in other jurisdictions, and a comparison with other offenses within the same jurisdiction.

2003In syllabus point eight of State v. Vance, 164 W.Va. 216 , 262 S.E.2d 423 (1980), this Court explained: 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 offense.” Further, syllabus point five of Wanstreet v. Bordenkircher, 166 W.Va. 523 , 276 S.E.2d 205 (1981), provides: In determining whether a given sentence violates the proportionality prin

2019That test provides as follows: In determining whether a given sentence violates the proportionality principle found in Article III, Section 5 of the West Virginia Constitution, consideration is given to the nature of the offense, the legislative purpose behind the punishment, a comparison of the punishment with what would be inflicted in other jurisdictions, and a comparison with other offenses within the 2 Petitioner relies upon State v. Ayers, 590 N.W.2d 25 (Iowa 1999), in support of this argument.

2019Va. 523 , 276 S.E.2d 205 (1981), we held: In determining whether a given sentence violates the proportionality principle found in Article III, Section 5 of the West Virginia Constitution, consideration is given to the nature of the offense, the legislative purpose behind the punishment, a comparison of the punishment with what would be inflicted in other jurisdictions, and a comparison with other offenses within the same jurisdiction. 3 In Syllabus Points 1 and 2 of Watts v. Ballard, 238 W.

2019Va. 730 , 798 S.E.2d 856 (2017), we held: “In reviewing challenges to the findings and conclusions of the circuit court in a habeas corpus action, we apply a three-prong standard of review.

2018In syllabus point seven of State v. Beck, 167 W.Va. 830 , 286 S.E.2d 234 (1981), this Court held: The appropriateness of a life recidivist sentence under our constitutional proportionality provision found in Article III, Section 5, will be analyzed as follows: We give initial emphasis to the nature of the final offense which triggers the recidivist life sentence, although consideration is also given to the other underlying convictions.

2018In syllabus point seven of State v. Beck, 167 W.Va. 830 , 286 S.E.2d 234 (1981), this Court held: The appropriateness of a life recidivist sentence under our constitutional proportionality provision found in Article III, Section 5, will be analyzed as follows: We give initial emphasis to the nature of the final offense which triggers the recidivist life sentence, although consideration is also given to the other underlying convictions.

2016The seminal case of State v. Lewis, 191 W.Va. 635 , 447 S.E.2d 570 (1994), addressed the issue of whether imprisonment for a third offense shoplifting conviction was disproportional. 9 In Lewis , the defendant was arrested for unlawfully taking from a store pork chops and garlic powder that had a collective value of $ 8.83. 10 The defendant was eventually convicted of third offense shoplifting, sentenced to one to ten years in prison, and fined $500.

2016The seminal case of State v. Lewis, 191 W.Va. 635 , 447 S.E.2d 570 (1994), addressed the issue of whether imprisonment for a third offense shoplifting conviction was disproportional. 9 In Lewis , the defendant was arrested for unlawfully taking from a store pork chops and garlic powder that had a collective value of $ 8.83. 10 The defendant was eventually convicted of third offense shoplifting, sentenced to one to ten years in prison, and fined $500.

2013In reaching that conclusion, we examined three elements utilized by the Fourth Circuit in Hart v. Coiner, 483 F.2d 136 (4th Cir.1973), to determine if certain “punishment” is constitutionally disproportionate: “(1) the nature of the offense itself; (2) the legislative purpose behind the punishment; and (3) what punishment would have been applied in other jurisdictions.” Harris, 160 W.

2013In reaching that conclusion, we examined three elements utilized by the Fourth Circuit in Hart v. Coiner, 483 F.2d 136 (4th Cir.1973), to determine if certain “punishment” is constitutionally disproportionate: “(1) the nature of the offense itself; (2) the legislative purpose behind the punishment; and (3) what punishment would have been applied in other jurisdictions.” Harris, 160 W.

1995When it cannot be said that a sentence shocks the conscience, a dispro-portionality challenge is guided by the objective test we spelled out in Syllabus Point 5 of Wanstreet v. Bordenkircher, 166 W.Va. 523 , 276 S.E.2d 205 (1981): ‘In determining whether a given sentence violates the proportionality principle found in Article III, Section 5 of the West Virginia Constitution, consideration is given to the nature of the offense, the legislative purpose behind the punishment, a comparison of the punishment with what would be inflicted in other jurisdictions, and a comparison with other offenses w

1995When it cannot be said that a sentence shocks the conscience, a dispro-portionality challenge is guided by the objective test we spelled out in Syllabus Point 5 of Wanstreet v. Bordenkircher, 166 W.Va. 523 , 276 S.E.2d 205 (1981): ‘In determining whether a given sentence violates the proportionality principle found in Article III, Section 5 of the West Virginia Constitution, consideration is given to the nature of the offense, the legislative purpose behind the punishment, a comparison of the punishment with what would be inflicted in other jurisdictions, and a comparison with other offenses w

1995When it cannot be said that a sentence shocks the conscience, a dispro-portionality challenge is guided by the objective test we spelled out in Syllabus Point 5 of Wanstreet v. Bordenkircher, 166 W.Va. 523 , 276 S.E.2d 205 (1981): ‘In determining whether a given sentence violates the proportionality principle found in Article III, Section 5 of the West Virginia Constitution, consideration is given to the nature of the offense, the legislative purpose behind the punishment, a comparison of the punishment with what would be inflicted in other jurisdictions, and a comparison with other offenses w

1995When it cannot be said that a sentence shocks the conscience, a dispro-portionality challenge is guided by the objective test we spelled out in Syllabus Point 5 of Wanstreet v. Bordenkircher, 166 W.Va. 523 , 276 S.E.2d 205 (1981): ‘In determining whether a given sentence violates the proportionality principle found in Article III, Section 5 of the West Virginia Constitution, consideration is given to the nature of the offense, the legislative purpose behind the punishment, a comparison of the punishment with what would be inflicted in other jurisdictions, and a comparison with other offenses w

1988This skews the proportionality analysis around only one factor which, in view of Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983), is of dubious validity. [1] Helm offers a valuable factual parallel.

1988This skews the proportionality analysis around only one factor which, in view of Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983), is of dubious validity. [1] Helm offers a valuable factual parallel.