No new act of the General Assembly shall be construed to repeal a former law, as to any offense committed against the former law, or as to any act done, any penalty, forfeiture, or punishment incurred, or any right accrued, or claim arising under the former law, or in any way whatever to affect any such offense or act so committed or done, or any penalty, forfeiture, or punishment so incurred, or any right accrued, or claim arising before the new act of the General Assembly takes effect; except that the proceedings thereafter held shall conform, so far as practicable, to the laws in force at the time of such proceedings; and if any penalty, forfeiture, or punishment be mitigated by any provision of the new act of the General Assembly, such provision may, with the consent of the party affected, be applied to any judgment pronounced after the new act of the General Assembly takes effect.
Code 1919, § 6, § 1-16; 2005, c. 839.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
50
cases (
34 in the last 5 years), 2007–2024 · leading case:
Hunter v. Commonwealth, 695 S.E.2d 567 (Va. Ct. App. 2010).
Hunter v. Commonwealth, 695 S.E.2d 567 (Va. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 6× “2d 682, 684 (2007), 5 appellant asserts that his May 2002 sentencing order was a final judgment order and that Code § 1-239 6 vested him with an accrued right to the law governing probation revocation procedures in effect at that time.”
Morency v. Com., 649 S.E.2d 682 (Va. 2007).
· cites it 22× “1-909 violated Code § 1-239 because it interfered with a right accrued in a 2004 court order obtained by Scott James Morency.”
Gheorghiu v. Commonwealth, 682 S.E.2d 50 (Va. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “See Code § 1-239. Nonetheless, at the time of the trial in the case before us, Arlington County was not the proper venue and I see no principled reason to adopt a "no harm, no foul" approach to the analysis of this issue.”
Ngomondjami v. Commonwealth, 678 S.E.2d 281 (Va. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “2d 898, 901 (2006); see also Code § 1-239. We conclude that since the General Assembly did not expressly refer to Code § 46.”
Norfolk Redevelopment & Hous. Auth. v. Cent. Radio, Inc., 82 Va. Cir. 240 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 2011).
· cites it 7× “Virginia Code § 1-239 provides that rights accrued or claims arising under former law before a new Code provision takes effect are to be adjudicated under the former law: No new act of the General Assembly shall be construed to repeal a former law, as to . . . any right accrued,…”
United States v. Santana, 761 F. Supp. 2d 131 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).
“1, § 214 (c) (West 2010) (“If the penalty or punishment for any offense is reduced by the amendment of an act or statutory provision, the same shall be imposed in accordance with the act or provision as amended unless imposed prior to the date of the amendment.”
Roy Quionne Artis v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 42× “] The only notable difference between the original version and Code § 1-239 is that Code § 1-239 replaced the phrase “new law” with “new act of the General Assembly.”
Commonwealth v. Delaune (Va. 2023).
· cites it 18× “The Court of Appeals, however, observed that Code § 1-239 permits the parties in a criminal proceeding to agree to apply a newly enacted, nonretroactive statute that imposes a mitigated penalty.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.