deferential abuse of discretion standard in West Virginia

359 West Virginia opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2026 91 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.

Followed or applied (15)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Lucasgreen wva · 1997 · cited in 296 West Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2002–2026 2 sentences 2026Va. 271 , 496 S.E.2d 221 (1997): The Supreme Court of Appeals reviews sentencing orders, including orders of restitution made in connection with a defendant’s sentencing, under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, unless the order violates statutory or constitutional commands. 2026This Court “‘reviews sentencing orders . . . under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, unless the order violates statutory or constitutional commands.’ Syl. pt. 1, in part, State v. Lucas, 201 W.	10	296
State v. Jamesgreen wva · 2011 · cited in 9 West Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2014–2023 2 sentences 2023Raymond B., 2021 WL 2580715 , at 2 (noting that sentencing orders are reviewed under a deferential abuse of discretion standard and quoting Syl. pt. 1, State v. James, 227 W. 2015*Thus, in syllabus point 1 of State v. Watkins, 214 W.Va. 477 , 590 S.E.2d 670 (2003), this Court confirmed the following standard of review with regard to sentencing orders in criminal cases: “‘The Supreme Court of Appeals reviews sentencing orders ... under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, unless the.order violates statutory or constitutional commands.’ Syllabus Point 1, in part, State v. Lucas, 201 W.Va. 271 , 496 S.E.2d 221 (1997).” Accord syl. pt. 1, State v. James, 227 W.Va. 407 , 710 S.E.2d 98 (2011).	3	9
State v. Sugggreen wva · 1995 · cited in 3 West Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2011–2013 2 sentences 2013Neither party addresses this procedural issue. 2 Syllabus Point 1 of State v. Lucas, 201 W.Va. 271 , 496 S.E.2d 221 (1997) holds that “[t]he Supreme Court of Appeals reviews sentencing orders, including orders of restitution made in connection with a defendant’s sentencing, under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, unless the order violates statutory or constitutional commands.” Furthermore, in State v. Sugg, 193 W.Va. 388, 406 , 456 S.E.2d 469, 487 (1995), we held that “[a]s a general proposition, we will not disturb a sentence following a criminal conviction if it falls within the ra 2013Neither party addresses this procedural issue. 2 Syllabus Point 1 of State v. Lucas, 201 W.Va. 271 , 496 S.E.2d 221 (1997) holds that “[t]he Supreme Court of Appeals reviews sentencing orders, including orders of restitution made in connection with a defendant’s sentencing, under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, unless the order violates statutory or constitutional commands.” Furthermore, in State v. Sugg, 193 W.Va. 388, 406 , 456 S.E.2d 469, 487 (1995), we held that “[a]s a general proposition, we will not disturb a sentence following a criminal conviction if it falls within the ra	3	3
State v. Headgreen wva · 1996 · cited in 3 West Virginia opinions naming this issue, 1997–2015 2 sentences 2015“The Supreme Court of Appeals reviews sentencing orders ... under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, unless the order violates statutory or constitutional commands.” See State v. Head, 198 W.Va. 298, 301 , 480 S.E.2d 507, 510 (1996). 2015“The Supreme Court of Appeals reviews sentencing orders ... under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, unless the order violates statutory or constitutional commands.” See State v. Head, 198 W.Va. 298, 301 , 480 S.E.2d 507, 510 (1996).	2	3
SER The First State Bank v. Hon. F. Jane Hustead, Judgegreen wva · 2015 · cited in 2 West Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 2 sentences 2018First State Bank v. Hustead , 237 W.Va. 219 , 225, 786 S.E.2d 479 , 485 (2015) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted) (citation omitted). 2018First State Bank v. Hustead , 237 W.Va. 219 , 225, 786 S.E.2d 479 , 485 (2015) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted) (citation omitted).	1	2
State of West Virginia v. Marty Atwellgreen wva · 2014 · cited in 2 West Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 2 sentences 2015Pt. 1, State v. Atwell, 234 W. 2015Pt. 1, State v. Atwell, 234 W.Va. 293 , 765 S.E.2d 182, 183-84 (2014) (quoting Syl.	1	2
In Re Charleston Gazette FOIA Requestgreen wva · 2009 · cited in 1 West Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024Compare In re Charleston Gazette FOIA Request, 222 W.	1	1
State of West Virginia v. Tex B.S.green wva · 2015 · cited in 1 West Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 1 sentence 2020Va. 261, 264 , 778 S.E.2d 710, 713 (2015).6 In addition, this Court “reviews sentencing orders . . . under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, unless the order violates statutory or constitutional commands.” Syl.	1	1
Wanstreet v. Bordenkirchergreen wva · 1981 · cited in 1 West Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017“While our constitutional proportionality standards theoretically can apply to any criminal sentence, they are basically applicable to those sentences where there is either no fixed maximum set by statute or where there is a life recidivist sentence.” Syllabus Point 4, Wanstreet v. Bordenkircher, 166 W.Va. 523, 528 , 276 S.E.2d 205, 209 (1981). 3. 2017“While our constitutional proportionality standards theoretically can apply to any criminal sentence, they are basically applicable to those sentences where there is either no fixed maximum set by statute or where there is a life recidivist sentence.” Syllabus Point 4, Wanstreet v. Bordenkircher, 166 W.Va. 523, 528 , 276 S.E.2d 205, 209 (1981). 3.	1	1
State of West Virginia v. Jerry Deelgreen wva · 2016 · cited in 1 West Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 2 sentences 2016Syllabus point 1 of State v. Lucas, 201 W.Va. 271, 273 , 496 S.E.2d 221, 223 (1997) holds: “The Supreme Court of Appeals reviews sentencing orders, including orders of restitution made in connection with a defendant’s sentencing, under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, unless the order violates statutory or constitutional commands.” Accord syl. pt. 1, State v. Deel, 237 W.Va. 600, 601 , 788 S.E.2d 741, 742 (2016). 2016Syllabus point 1 of State v. Lucas, 201 W.Va. 271, 273 , 496 S.E.2d 221, 223 (1997) holds: “The Supreme Court of Appeals reviews sentencing orders, including orders of restitution made in connection with a defendant’s sentencing, under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, unless the order violates statutory or constitutional commands.” Accord syl. pt. 1, State v. Deel, 237 W.Va. 600, 601 , 788 S.E.2d 741, 742 (2016).	1	1
State v. Grimesgreen wva · 2009 · cited in 1 West Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015	1	1
Evans v. Eaton Corp. Long Term Disability Plangreen ca4 · 2008 · cited in 1 West Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 1 sentence 2015While not admitting any misconduct with regard to the loan transaction, the Bank maintains the actions of the Bank that Mr. Powers now complains about were known to him at the time he signed the Agreed Order Confessing Judgment and he was represented by counsel at that time. 10 Yet inherent in the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard is a command of “judicial restraint, which safeguard[s] the superior vantage points of those entrusted with primary decisional responsibility.” Evans v. Eaton Corp. Long Term Disability Plan, 514 F.3d 315, 320-21 (4th Cir.2008).	1	1
Bassett v. Commonwealthgreen va · 1981 · cited in 1 West Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005	1	1
State v. Guthriegreen wva · 1995 · cited in 1 West Virginia opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995	1	1
State v. Derrgreen wva · 1994 · cited in 1 West Virginia opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in West Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (31)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Adams green wva · 2002 2 sentences 2022Pt. 1, in part, State v. Adams, 211 W. 2022Pt. 1, in part, State v. Adams, 211 W.	38	2016–2022
State v. GEORGIUS green wva · 2010 2 sentences 2015We have further held that we “‘review[] sentencing orders . . . under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, unless the order violates statutory or constitutional commands.’ Syllabus Point 1, in part, State v. Lucas, 201 W.Va. 271 , 496 S.E.2d 221 (1997).” Georgius, 225 W.Va. at 717 , 696 S.E.2d at 19 , syl. pt. 2, in part. 2015We have further held that we “‘review[] sentencing orders . . . under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, unless the order violates statutory or constitutional commands.’ Syllabus Point 1, in part, State v. Lucas, 201 W.Va. 271 , 496 S.E.2d 221 (1997).” Georgius, 225 W.Va. at 717 , 696 S.E.2d at 19 , syl. pt. 2, in part.	28	2014–2024
State v. Booth green wva · 2009 2 sentences 2022We have previously held as follows: “‘The Supreme Court of Appeals reviews sentencing orders . . . under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, unless the order violates statutory or constitutional commands.’ Syllabus point 1, in part, State v. Lucas, 201 W.Va. 271 , 496 S.E.2d 221 (1997).” Syllabus Point 1, State v. Booth, 224 W.Va. 307 , 685 S.E.2d 701 (2009). 2022We have previously held as follows: “‘The Supreme Court of Appeals reviews sentencing orders . . . under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, unless the order violates statutory or constitutional commands.’ Syllabus point 1, in part, State v. Lucas, 201 W.Va. 271 , 496 S.E.2d 221 (1997).” Syllabus Point 1, State v. Booth, 224 W.Va. 307 , 685 S.E.2d 701 (2009).	12	2016–2022
State v. Goodnight green wva · 1982 2 sentences 2024Va. 366 , 287 S.E.2d 504 (1982). 2. “‘The Supreme Court of Appeals reviews sentencing orders . . . under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, unless the order violates statutory or constitutional commands.’ Syl. 2022Va. 366 , 287 S.E.2d 504 (1982), and “unless the order violates statutory or constitutional commands,” this Court reviews sentencing orders “under a deferential abuse of discretion standard.” Syl.	11	2003–2024
State v. Watkins green wva · 2003 2 sentences 2023Va. 477 , 590 S.E.2d 670 (2003), this Court confirmed the following standard of review with regard to sentencing orders in criminal cases: “‘The Supreme Court of Appeals reviews sentencing orders . . . under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, unless the order violates statutory or constitutional commands.’ Syllabus Point 1, in part, State v. Lucas, 201 W. 2015Thus, in syllabus point 1 of State v. Watkins, 214 W.Va. 477 , 590 S.E.2d 670 (2003), this Court confirmed the following standard of review with regard to sentencing orders in criminal cases: “‘The Supreme Court of Appeals reviews sentencing orders ... under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, unless the.order violates statutory or constitutional commands.’ Syllabus Point 1, in part, State v. Lucas, 201 W.Va. 271 , 496 S.E.2d 221 (1997).” Accord syl. pt. 1, State v. James, 227 W.Va. 407 , 710 S.E.2d 98 (2011).	6	2005–2023
State v. Eilola green wva · 2010 2 sentences 2020Pt. 2, in part, State v. Eilola, 226 W. 2020Pt. 2, in part, State v. Eilola, 226 W.	5	2019–2020
State v. Sulick green wva · 2012 2 sentences 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. 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.	3	2015–2016
State of West Virginia v. Taylor R. Wasson, Jr. neutral wva · 2015 2 sentences 2022Pt. 1, State v. Wasson, 236 W. 2018Pt. 1, State v. Wasson, 236 W.Va. 238 , 778 S.E.2d 687 (2015) (citation omitted).	2	2018–2022
State v. LaRock green wva · 1996 2 sentences 2019Va. 294 , 470 S.E.2d 613 (1996). 4. “‘“The Supreme Court of Appeals reviews sentencing orders . . . under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, unless the order violates statutory or constitutional commands.” Syllabus point 1, in part, State v. Lucas, 201 W. 2019Va. 294 , 470 S.E.2d 613 (1996). 4. “‘“The Supreme Court of Appeals reviews sentencing orders . . . under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, unless the order violates statutory or constitutional commands.” Syllabus point 1, in part, State v. Lucas, 201 W.	2	2019–2019
Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L. green wva · 1995 2 sentences 2017“Where the issue on an appeal from the circuit court is clearly a question of law or involving an interpretation of a statute, we apply a de novo standard of review.” Syllabus Point 1, Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W.Va. 138 , 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995). 2017“Where the issue on an appeal from the circuit court is clearly a question of law or involving an interpretation of a statute, we apply a de novo standard of review.” Syllabus Point 1, Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W.Va. 138 , 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995).	2	2015–2017
Kennedy v. Frazier green wva · 1987 2 sentences 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. 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.	2	2015–2016
North Carolina v. Alford green scotus · 1970 2 sentences 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. 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.	2	2016–2016
State v. Richardson green wva · 2003 2 sentences 2009Syllabus point 1 of State v. Lucas, 201 W.Va. 271 , 496 S.E.2d 221 (1997), holds: “The Supreme Court of Appeals reviews sentencing orders, including orders of restitution made in connection with a defendant’s sentencing, under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, unless the order violates statutory or constitutional commands.” Syl. pt. 1, State v. Richardson, 214 W.Va. 410 , 589 S.E.2d 552 (2003); syl. pt. 1, State v. Watkins, 214 W.Va. 477 , 590 S.E.2d 670 (2003). 2009Syllabus point 1 of State v. Lucas, 201 W.Va. 271 , 496 S.E.2d 221 (1997), holds: “The Supreme Court of Appeals reviews sentencing orders, including orders of restitution made in connection with a defendant’s sentencing, under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, unless the order violates statutory or constitutional commands.” Syl. pt. 1, State v. Richardson, 214 W.Va. 410 , 589 S.E.2d 552 (2003); syl. pt. 1, State v. Watkins, 214 W.Va. 477 , 590 S.E.2d 670 (2003).	2	2005–2009
State v. Arbaugh green wva · 2004 1 sentence 2024Va. 132 , 595 S.E.2d 289 (2004), his youth and personal history compelled the circuit court to “craft a [sentencing] remedy which will protect the public, especially children, from harm but to also protect young and unfortunate people like [him] who suffer from a myriad of afflictions through no fault of their own.” This Court reviews sentencing orders “under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, unless the order violates statutory or constitutional commands.” Syl.	1	2024–2024
State of West Virginia v. Jerry Lee Hedrick green wva · 2015 1 sentence 2023Va. 271 , 496 S.E.2d 221 (1997).” 236 W.	1	2023–2023
Charles Elder v. Annabelle Scolapia, Home Incarceration Officer green wva · 2013 2 sentences 2021This Court 3 Consistent with the parties’ practice, we will continue to use the term “home confinement” rather than “home incarceration.” See Elder v. Scolapia, 230 W.Va. 422 , 424 n.1, 738 S.E.2d 924 , 926 n.1 (2013) (noting that, in 1994, the Home Confinement Act, West Virginia Code §§ 62-11B- 1 through 62-11B-13, was renamed the Home Incarceration Act). 4 The Uniform Controlled Substances Act is set forth at West Virginia Code §§ 60A-1-101 through 60A-6-505. 5 By subsequent order entered on December 9, 2019, the circuit court granted petitioner’s motion to receive credit for time served whi 2021This Court 3 Consistent with the parties’ practice, we will continue to use the term “home confinement” rather than “home incarceration.” See Elder v. Scolapia, 230 W.Va. 422 , 424 n.1, 738 S.E.2d 924 , 926 n.1 (2013) (noting that, in 1994, the Home Confinement Act, West Virginia Code §§ 62-11B- 1 through 62-11B-13, was renamed the Home Incarceration Act). 4 The Uniform Controlled Substances Act is set forth at West Virginia Code §§ 60A-1-101 through 60A-6-505. 5 By subsequent order entered on December 9, 2019, the circuit court granted petitioner’s motion to receive credit for time served whi	1	2021–2021
State v. Cooper green wva · 1983 1 sentence 2019In syllabus point five of State v. Cooper , 172 W.	1	2019–2019
Raymond Pratt v. David Ballard, Warden neutral wva · 2016 2 sentences 2018Pt. 2, Pratt v. Ballard, 238 W.Va. 184 , 793 S.E.2d 348 (2016). 2018Pt. 2, Pratt v. Ballard, 238 W.Va. 184 , 793 S.E.2d 348 (2016).	1	2018–2018
State v. Tyler green wva · 2002 2 sentences 2018Pt. 1, State v. Tyler, 211 W.Va. 246 , 565 S.E.2d 368 (2002) (citation omitted). 2018Pt. 1, State v. Tyler, 211 W.Va. 246 , 565 S.E.2d 368 (2002) (citation omitted).	1	2018–2018
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Moorer green scctapp · 1998	1	2015–2015
Meadows v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. green wva · 2000	1	2015–2015
State of West Virgina v. Gabriel Hargus, etc. green wva · 2013	1	2015–2015
State of West Virginia v. Rebecca F. green wva · 2014	1	2015–2015
State v. Osakalumi green wva · 1995	1	2014–2014
State v. McGill green wva · 2012	1	2014–2014
State v. Youngblood green wva · 2007	1	2014–2014
State v. Huffman green wva · 1955	1	2013–2013
State v. Rutherford green wva · 2008	1	2011–2011
State v. Rogers green wva · 1981	1	2009–2009
Fendler v. United States green scotus · 1982	1	2005–2005
Cervi v. Georgia green scotus · 1982	1	2005–2005

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WV § W. Va. Code § 61-2-12 (35) WV § W. Va. Code § 62-12-26 (31) WV § W. Va. Code § 60A-4-401 (30) WV § W. Va. Code § 61-8D-5 (30) WV § W. Va. Code § 61-11-18 (28) WV § W. Va. Code § 61-2-9 (21) WV § W. Va. Code § 61-10-31 (18) WV § W. Va. Code § 61-11-21 (18) WV § W. Va. Code § 61-11-19 (17) WV § W. Va. Code § 61-8B-7 (17) WV § W. Va. Code § 61-3-13 (16) WV § W. Va. Code § 61-3-11 (15)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 954 (1987–2026) WV 359 (1995–2026) TN 50 (2002–2026) VA 38 (2004–2026) TX 23 (1998–2025) IL 19 (2004–2026) KY 16 (2010–2026) OH 15 (1996–2025) NJ 14 (2018–2025) NM 13 (1998–2022) CT 12 (2006–2026) PA 12 (2010–2021) MN 10 (2005–2026) MI 10 (2002–2024) KS 10 (2010–2026) FL 9 (2013–2026) MS 8 (2000–2015) WA 7 (1999–2024) HI 7 (2004–2024) RI 7 (1998–2026) AK 5 (1995–2025) MD 5 (2004–2018) CO 5 (2015–2024) DE 4 (1987–2026) MA 4 (1999–2005) OK 4 (2001–2021) ME 2 (2011–2018) DC 2 (1998–1998) AZ 2 (2018–2024) MT 2 (2005–2013) VT 2 (2012–2013) NV 2 (2019–2021)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check