12 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1978–2026 9 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Peter Onwuemene, A/K/A Joseph O. Amosgreen2 sentences2023We find no indication in the court’s remarks that the court considered impermissible factors in sentencing. “[T]he impermissible factors a court should not consider in sentencing include such matters as ‘race, sex, national origin, creed, religion, and socioeconomic status . . . .’ United States v. Onwuemene, 933 F.2d 650, 651 (8th Cir. 1991).” State v. Moles, No. 18-0903, 2019 WL 5092415 , at *2 (W. 2019Instead, the impermissible factors a court should not consider in sentencing include such matters as “race, sex, national origin, creed, religion, and socioeconomic status . . . .” United States v. Onwuemene, 933 F.2d 650, 651 (8th Cir. 1991) “Moreover, sentencing an offender on the basis of factors such as race, national origin, or alienage violates the Constitution.” Id. | 4 | 4 |
| 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. Goodnight
green
2 sentences2026Va. 366 , 287 S.E.2d 504 (1982), which provides that “[s]entences imposed by the trial court, if within statutory limits and if not based on some [im]permissible factor, are not subject to appellate review.” Impermissible factors include “race, sex, national origin, creed, religion, and socioeconomic status . . . .” State v. Moles, No. 18-0903, 2019 WL 5092415 , at *2 (W. 2026Va. 366 , 287 S.E.2d 504 (1982), which provides that “[s]entences imposed by the trial court, if within statutory limits and if not based on some [im]permissible factor, are not subject to appellate review.” Impermissible factors include “race, sex, national origin, creed, religion, and socioeconomic status . . . .” State v. Moles, No. 18-0903, 2019 WL 5092415 , at *2 (W. | 5 | 2024–2026 |
State v. Pendry
green
2 sentences1980Va. Code, 17C-5A-5(c) [1968] establishes an impermissible presumption contrary to State v. Pendry, _ W.Va. _, 227 S.E.2d 210 (1976) when it says: Evidence that there was, at that time, ten hundredths of one percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his blood, shall be admitted as prima facie evidence that the person was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. 1978Ed. 2d 508 , 95 S.Ct. 1881 (1975), and State v. Pendry, _ W.Va. _, 227 S.E.2d 210 (1976). | 2 | 1978–1980 |
Barker v. Fox
green
1 sentence2026Va. 749 , 238 S.E.2d 235 (1977).2 The circuit court’s dismissal was based upon an impermissible analysis. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Mullaney v. Wilbur
green
2 sentences1978It requires the State to prove, in order to sustain a first degree murder conviction in a felony-murder case, that defendant committed or attempted to commit the named felony and that he committed murder incidental thereto.” Peacher dealt with the question of whether the felony-murder rule created an impermissible presumption in the proof of an element of the crime of felony-murder, in light of Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 , 44 L. 1978It requires the State to prove, in order to sustain a first degree murder conviction in a felony-murder case, that defendant committed or attempted to commit the named felony and that he committed murder incidental thereto.” Peacher dealt with the question of whether the felony-murder rule created an impermissible presumption in the proof of an element of the crime of felony-murder, in light of Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 , 44 L. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.