20 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1996–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kennedy v. Fraziergreen2 sentences2016This appeal followed. 2 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (permitting criminal defendant to plead guilty and accept prison sentence without admitting guilt), and Kennedy v. Frazier, 178 W.Va. 10 , 357 S.E.2d 43 (1987) (adopting Alford analysis). 2 Generally, “‘[t]he Supreme Court of Appeals reviews sentencing orders . . . under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, unless the order violates statutory or constitutional commands.’ Syl. 2016This appeal followed. 2 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (permitting criminal defendant to plead guilty and accept prison sentence without admitting guilt), and Kennedy v. Frazier, 178 W.Va. 10 , 357 S.E.2d 43 (1987) (adopting Alford analysis). 2 Generally, “‘[t]he Supreme Court of Appeals reviews sentencing orders . . . under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, unless the order violates statutory or constitutional commands.’ Syl. | 4 | 5 |
State v. Lillygreen2 sentences2024Va. 595 , 605 n.2, 461 S.E.2d 101 , 111 n.2 (1995) (Cleckley, J., concurring) (explaining that, in contrast to a conditional guilty plea, an Alford plea “does not in itself reserve any issue for appeal”). 2 constitutional rights by entering into a plea agreement.” State ex rel. 2022Va. 595 , 605 n. 2, 461 S.E.2d 101 , 111 n. 2 (1995) (Cleckley, J., concurring) (explaining that an Alford plea allows a defendant to plead guilty to an offense yet continue to maintain his/her innocence). | 3 | 4 |
Alex M. Crofoot v. United States Government Printing Officegreen2 sentences1996See Pearce v. United States Dept. of Justice, Drug Enforcement Admin., 867 F.2d 253 (6th Cir.1988) (Interpreted the word "conviction" as used in 21 U.S.C. § 824 to include a conviction based upon a plea of no contest, and permitting revocation of DEA registration based upon a finding that the registrant had been "convicted," of a felony after a plea of no contest.); Crofoot v. United States Government Printing Office, 761 F.2d 661, 665 (Fed.Cir.1985) (Found that a plea of guilty under the Alford doctrine could be considered as the basis for dismissing a Government Printing Office employee, so 1996See Pearce v. United States Dept. of Justice, Drug Enforcement Admin., 867 F.2d 253 (6th Cir.1988) (Interpreted the word "conviction" as used in 21 U.S.C. § 824 to include a conviction based upon a plea of no contest, and permitting revocation of DEA registration based upon a finding that the registrant had been "convicted," of a felony after a plea of no contest.); Crofoot v. United States Government Printing Office, 761 F.2d 661, 665 (Fed.Cir.1985) (Found that a plea of guilty under the Alford doctrine could be considered as the basis for dismissing a Government Printing Office employee, so | 2 | 2 |
Charles E. Pearce, M.D. v. United States Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administrationgreen2 sentences1996See Pearce v. United States Dept. of Justice, Drug Enforcement Admin., 867 F.2d 253 (6th Cir.1988) (Interpreted the word "conviction" as used in 21 U.S.C. § 824 to include a conviction based upon a plea of no contest, and permitting revocation of DEA registration based upon a finding that the registrant had been "convicted," of a felony after a plea of no contest.); Crofoot v. United States Government Printing Office, 761 F.2d 661, 665 (Fed.Cir.1985) (Found that a plea of guilty under the Alford doctrine could be considered as the basis for dismissing a Government Printing Office employee, so 1996See Pearce v. United States Dept. of Justice, Drug Enforcement Admin., 867 F.2d 253 (6th Cir.1988) (Interpreted the word "conviction" as used in 21 U.S.C. § 824 to include a conviction based upon a plea of no contest, and permitting revocation of DEA registration based upon a finding that the registrant had been "convicted," of a felony after a plea of no contest.); Crofoot v. United States Government Printing Office, 761 F.2d 661, 665 (Fed.Cir.1985) (Found that a plea of guilty under the Alford doctrine could be considered as the basis for dismissing a Government Printing Office employee, so | 2 | 2 |
County of Los Angeles v. Civil Service Commissiongreen2 sentences1996For cases in accord with our view: See County of Los Angeles v. Civil Service Commission, 39 Cal.App.4th 620 , 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 256, 262 (1995) (Evidence of deputy sheriff's no contest plea to the misdemeanor charge of receiving stolen property was not admissible at disciplinary hearing absent express legislative authorization. 1996For cases in accord with our view: See County of Los Angeles v. Civil Service Commission, 39 Cal.App.4th 620 , 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 256, 262 (1995) (Evidence of deputy sheriff's no contest plea to the misdemeanor charge of receiving stolen property was not admissible at disciplinary hearing absent express legislative authorization. | 2 | 2 |
Manzoor H. Qureshi v. Immigration & Naturalization Service of the Department of Justice of the United Statesgreen2 sentences1996See Pearce v. United States Dept. of Justice, Drug Enforcement Admin., 867 F.2d 253 (6th Cir.1988) (Interpreted the word "conviction" as used in 21 U.S.C. § 824 to include a conviction based upon a plea of no contest, and permitting revocation of DEA registration based upon a finding that the registrant had been "convicted," of a felony after a plea of no contest.); Crofoot v. United States Government Printing Office, 761 F.2d 661, 665 (Fed.Cir.1985) (Found that a plea of guilty under the Alford doctrine could be considered as the basis for dismissing a Government Printing Office employee, so 1996See Pearce v. United States Dept. of Justice, Drug Enforcement Admin., 867 F.2d 253 (6th Cir.1988) (Interpreted the word "conviction" as used in 21 U.S.C. § 824 to include a conviction based upon a plea of no contest, and permitting revocation of DEA registration based upon a finding that the registrant had been "convicted," of a felony after a plea of no contest.); Crofoot v. United States Government Printing Office, 761 F.2d 661, 665 (Fed.Cir.1985) (Found that a plea of guilty under the Alford doctrine could be considered as the basis for dismissing a Government Printing Office employee, so | 2 | 2 |
North Carolina v. Alfordgreen2 sentences2020An Alford plea, from the decision in North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 9 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), allows a defendant to enter a guilty plea without admitting guilt. 2020An Alford plea, from the decision in North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 9 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), allows a defendant to enter a guilty plea without admitting guilt. | 1 | 10 |
State of West Virginia v. Orville M. Huttongreen1 sentence2023Va. 724, 726-27 , 776 S.E.2d 621, 623-24 (2015) (commenting that the defendant “entered an Alford plea of guilty to the crime of unlawful assault, a lesser-included offense of malicious assault” (footnote omitted)). 8 By making the “intent to maim, disfigure, 8 See also Dent v. Ames, No. 21-0680, 2022 WL 14812566 , at *1 (W. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Thomas J. Harlangreen1 sentence2016Therefore, we find that petitioner’s argument is without merit. 3 See United States v. Harlan, 35 F.3d 176, 181 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that district court may consider Alford plea as relevant factor when deciding whether to grant acceptance-of responsibility reduction; citing decisions from First, Seventh, and Eleventh Federal Circuits); United States v. Tucker, 925 F.2d 990 , 991 (6th Cir.1991) (affirming district court’s denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility based on Alford plea, although Alford plea did not automatically preclude defendant’s ability to accept responsibili | 1 | 1 |
State v. Herndongreen1 sentence2016Therefore, we find that petitioner’s argument is without merit. 3 See United States v. Harlan, 35 F.3d 176, 181 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that district court may consider Alford plea as relevant factor when deciding whether to grant acceptance-of responsibility reduction; citing decisions from First, Seventh, and Eleventh Federal Circuits); United States v. Tucker, 925 F.2d 990 , 991 (6th Cir.1991) (affirming district court’s denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility based on Alford plea, although Alford plea did not automatically preclude defendant’s ability to accept responsibili | 1 | 1 |
State v. Beckwithgreen1 sentence2016Therefore, we find that petitioner’s argument is without merit. 3 See United States v. Harlan, 35 F.3d 176, 181 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that district court may consider Alford plea as relevant factor when deciding whether to grant acceptance-of responsibility reduction; citing decisions from First, Seventh, and Eleventh Federal Circuits); United States v. Tucker, 925 F.2d 990 , 991 (6th Cir.1991) (affirming district court’s denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility based on Alford plea, although Alford plea did not automatically preclude defendant’s ability to accept responsibili | 1 | 1 |
State v. Knightgreen1 sentence2016Therefore, we find that petitioner’s argument is without merit. 3 See United States v. Harlan, 35 F.3d 176, 181 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that district court may consider Alford plea as relevant factor when deciding whether to grant acceptance-of responsibility reduction; citing decisions from First, Seventh, and Eleventh Federal Circuits); United States v. Tucker, 925 F.2d 990 , 991 (6th Cir.1991) (affirming district court’s denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility based on Alford plea, although Alford plea did not automatically preclude defendant’s ability to accept responsibili | 1 | 1 |
Coleman v. Paintergreen2 sentences2008Gillespie testified that he then joined an organization known as the Aryan Brotherhood. [4] We note that, during the habeas hearing and in this appeal, Defendant's counsel indicated that, in fact, there was a conspiracy to murder Lehman but that Defendant was not a part of it. [5] These witnesses were William Wayne, Tony Kile, Robert Shepherd and Michael Kidwiler. [6] We note that Morgan pled guilty to the conspiracy charge in an "Alford plea." See Coleman v. Painter, 215 W.Va. 592 , 597 n. 8, 600 S.E.2d 304 , 309 n. 8 (2004) ("In an `Alford plea,' a criminal defendant pleads guilty while proc 2008Gillespie testified that he then joined an organization known as the Aryan Brotherhood. [4] We note that, during the habeas hearing and in this appeal, Defendant's counsel indicated that, in fact, there was a conspiracy to murder Lehman but that Defendant was not a part of it. [5] These witnesses were William Wayne, Tony Kile, Robert Shepherd and Michael Kidwiler. [6] We note that Morgan pled guilty to the conspiracy charge in an "Alford plea." See Coleman v. Painter, 215 W.Va. 592 , 597 n. 8, 600 S.E.2d 304 , 309 n. 8 (2004) ("In an `Alford plea,' a criminal defendant pleads guilty while proc | 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 v. Edward Charles L.
green
2 sentences2022Va. 641 , 645 n.1, 398 S.E.2d 123 , 127 n.1 (1990). 2 B.C. was convicted of a sexually motivated battery in 2013 pursuant to an Alford plea for allegedly touching the breast of a sixteen-year-old female friend of his teenage daughter. 2017II, 230 W.Va. 731 , 742 S.E.2d 419 (2013); State v. Brandon B., 218 W.Va. 324 , 624 S.E.2d 761 (2005); State v. Edward Charles L., 183 W.Va. 641 , 398 S.E.2d 123 (1990). 2 An Alford plea, from the decision in North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), allows a defendant to enter a guilty plea without admitting guilt. | 2 | 2017–2022 |
Eisenberg v. COM., DEPT. OF PUB. WEL.
green
2 sentences1996See Pearce v. United States Dept. of Justice, Drug Enforcement Admin., 867 F.2d 253 (6th Cir.1988) (Interpreted the word "conviction" as used in 21 U.S.C. § 824 to include a conviction based upon a plea of no contest, and permitting revocation of DEA registration based upon a finding that the registrant had been "convicted," of a felony after a plea of no contest.); Crofoot v. United States Government Printing Office, 761 F.2d 661, 665 (Fed.Cir.1985) (Found that a plea of guilty under the Alford doctrine could be considered as the basis for dismissing a Government Printing Office employee, so 1996See Pearce v. United States Dept. of Justice, Drug Enforcement Admin., 867 F.2d 253 (6th Cir.1988) (Interpreted the word "conviction" as used in 21 U.S.C. § 824 to include a conviction based upon a plea of no contest, and permitting revocation of DEA registration based upon a finding that the registrant had been "convicted," of a felony after a plea of no contest.); Crofoot v. United States Government Printing Office, 761 F.2d 661, 665 (Fed.Cir.1985) (Found that a plea of guilty under the Alford doctrine could be considered as the basis for dismissing a Government Printing Office employee, so | 2 | 1996–1996 |
State Ex Rel. Forbes v. Kaufman
green
1 sentence2024Forbes v. Kaufman, 185 W. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. BRANDON B.
green
2 sentences2017II, 230 W.Va. 731 , 742 S.E.2d 419 (2013); State v. Brandon B., 218 W.Va. 324 , 624 S.E.2d 761 (2005); State v. Edward Charles L., 183 W.Va. 641 , 398 S.E.2d 123 (1990). 2 An Alford plea, from the decision in North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), allows a defendant to enter a guilty plea without admitting guilt. 2017II, 230 W.Va. 731 , 742 S.E.2d 419 (2013); State v. Brandon B., 218 W.Va. 324 , 624 S.E.2d 761 (2005); State v. Edward Charles L., 183 W.Va. 641 , 398 S.E.2d 123 (1990). 2 An Alford plea, from the decision in North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), allows a defendant to enter a guilty plea without admitting guilt. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Melinda H. v. William R., II
green
2 sentences2017II, 230 W.Va. 731 , 742 S.E.2d 419 (2013); State v. Brandon B., 218 W.Va. 324 , 624 S.E.2d 761 (2005); State v. Edward Charles L., 183 W.Va. 641 , 398 S.E.2d 123 (1990). 2 An Alford plea, from the decision in North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), allows a defendant to enter a guilty plea without admitting guilt. 2017II, 230 W.Va. 731 , 742 S.E.2d 419 (2013); State v. Brandon B., 218 W.Va. 324 , 624 S.E.2d 761 (2005); State v. Edward Charles L., 183 W.Va. 641 , 398 S.E.2d 123 (1990). 2 An Alford plea, from the decision in North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), allows a defendant to enter a guilty plea without admitting guilt. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
STATE EX REL. FRANKLIN v. McBride
green
2 sentences2016Franklin v. McBride, 226 W.Va. 375 , 701 S.E.2d 97 (2009). 3 An Alford plea, from the decision in North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), allows a defendant to enter a guilty plea without admitting guilt. 2016Franklin v. McBride, 226 W.Va. 375 , 701 S.E.2d 97 (2009). 3 An Alford plea, from the decision in North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), allows a defendant to enter a guilty plea without admitting guilt. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Lucas
green
2 sentences2016Pt. 1, in part, State v. Lucas, 201 W.Va. 271 , 496 S.E.2d 221 (1997).” Syl. 2016Pt. 1, in part, State v. Lucas, 201 W.Va. 271 , 496 S.E.2d 221 (1997).” Syl. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
United States v. Susan Tucker
green
1 sentence2016Therefore, we find that petitioner’s argument is without merit. 3 See United States v. Harlan, 35 F.3d 176, 181 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that district court may consider Alford plea as relevant factor when deciding whether to grant acceptance-of responsibility reduction; citing decisions from First, Seventh, and Eleventh Federal Circuits); United States v. Tucker, 925 F.2d 990 , 991 (6th Cir.1991) (affirming district court’s denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility based on Alford plea, although Alford plea did not automatically preclude defendant’s ability to accept responsibili | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Sulick
green
2 sentences2016Pt. 8, State v. Sulick, 232 W.Va. 717 , 753 S.E.2d 875 (2012). “‘The Supreme Court of Appeals reviews sentencing orders . . . under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, unless the order violates statutory or constitutional commands.’ 1 An Alford plea, from the decision in North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), allows a defendant to enter a guilty plea without admitting guilt. 2016Pt. 8, State v. Sulick, 232 W.Va. 717 , 753 S.E.2d 875 (2012). “‘The Supreme Court of Appeals reviews sentencing orders . . . under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, unless the order violates statutory or constitutional commands.’ 1 An Alford plea, from the decision in North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), allows a defendant to enter a guilty plea without admitting guilt. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Goodnight
green
2 sentences2013Pt. 4, State v. Goodnight, 169 W.Va. 366 , 287 S.E.2d 504 (1982). 2013Pt. 4, State v. Goodnight, 169 W.Va. 366 , 287 S.E.2d 504 (1982). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Call v. McKenzie
green
2 sentences2013Additionally, respondent argues that the circuit court conducted a proper colloquy with petitioner pursuant to Call v. McKenzie, 159 W.Va. 191 , 220 S.E.2d 665 (1975), prior to accepting petitioner’s Alford plea. 2013Additionally, respondent argues that the circuit court conducted a proper colloquy with petitioner pursuant to Call v. McKenzie, 159 W.Va. 191 , 220 S.E.2d 665 (1975), prior to accepting petitioner’s Alford plea. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Finley
green
2 sentences2008As we held in syllabus point 2 of State v. Finley, 219 W.Va. 747 , 639 S.E.2d 839 (2006), "`[a] criminal defendant has the right under the Due Process Clause of our State and Federal Constitutions not to be forced to trial in identifiable prison attire.' Syl. 2008As we held in syllabus point 2 of State v. Finley, 219 W.Va. 747 , 639 S.E.2d 839 (2006), "`[a] criminal defendant has the right under the Due Process Clause of our State and Federal Constitutions not to be forced to trial in identifiable prison attire.' Syl. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.