13 canonical passages across 9 cases, quoted by 515 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from State v. Goodnight.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | State v. Goodnight Anchor | green | “sentences imposed by the trial court, if within statutory limits and if not based on some impermissible factor, are not subject to appellate review.” | 163 |
| 2 | Wanstreet v. Bordenkircher | green | “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.” | 52 |
| 3 | State v. Adams | green | “under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, unless the order violates statutory or constitutional commands.” | 38 |
| 4 | State v. Lucas | green | “the supreme court of appeals reviews sentencing orders . . . under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, unless the order violates statutory or constitutional commands.” | 34 |
| 5 | State v. Vance | green | “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 cha…” | 30 |
| 6 | State v. Lucas | green | “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.” | 26 |
| 7 | State v. Lucas | green | “the supreme court of appeals reviews sentencing orders ... under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, unless the order violates statutory or constitutional commands.” | 16 |
| 8 | Keith v. Leverette | green | “when a defendant has been convicted of two separate crimes, before sentence is pronounced for either, the trial court may, in its discretion, provide that the sentences run concurrently, and unless it does so provide, the sentences will run consecutively.” | 15 |
| 9 | Wanstreet v. Bordenkircher | green | “where there is either no fixed maximum set by statute or where there is a life recidivist sentence.” | 9 |
| 10 | State v. Sugg | green | “as a general proposition, we will not disturb a sentence following a criminal conviction if it falls within the range of what is permitted under the statute.” | 9 |
| 11 | State v. Cooper | green | “punishment may be constitutionally impermissible, although not cruel or unusual in its method, if it is so disproportionate to the crime for which it is inflicted that it shocks the conscience and offends fundamental notions of human dignity, thereby violating west virginia cons…” | 8 |
| 12 | State v. GEORGIUS | green | “it is not the proper prerogative of this court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court on sentencing matters, so long as the appellant's sentence was within the statutory limits, was not based upon any impermissible factors, and did not violate constitutional prin…” | 7 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.