Virginia Code
Va. Code Ann. § 17.1-313 (2026)
Repealed
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 65
cases, 1998–2013 · leading case: Porter v. Com., 661 S.E.2d 415 (Va. 2008).
Porter v. Com., 661 S.E.2d 415 (Va. 2008). “Nor do I take issue with the majority's conclusion that the death sentence in this case, properly obtained, would not be excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases when reviewed under Code § 17.1-313. The undisputed procedural facts in this case are no…”
Juniper v. Com., 626 S.E.2d 383 (Va. 2006). “1-409 for consolidation with the appeal of Juniper's capital murder convictions (Record No.”
Winston v. Com., 604 S.E.2d 21 (Va. 2004). “The trial court imposed three death sentences, the sentences of imprisonment as fixed by the jury, as well as the fines imposed; however, the court suspended the imposition of fines. Winston noted appeals of his convictions on February 26, 2004.”
Bailey v. Commonwealth, 529 S.E.2d 570 (Va. 2000). “As mandated by Code § 17.1-313, we review the convictions and death sentences imposed upon Mark Wesley Bailey (Bailey), for the capital murder of Nathan Mark Bailey (Nathan), Bailey’s two-year-old son.”
Emmett v. Commonwealth, 569 S.E.2d 39 (Va. 2002). “Emmett noted an appeal of his convictions, but on February 8, 2002 he filed a motion to withdraw that appeal.”
Atkins v. Commonwealth, 534 S.E.2d 312 (Va. 2000). “Code § 17.1-313, which requires that this Court review a sentence of death, states in relevant part that we must consider "[w]hether the sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant.”
Powell v. Commonwealth, 590 S.E.2d 537 (Va. 2004). “Powell contended that by eliminating an intermediate review by the Court of Appeals, a defendant is denied the opportunity to perfect the issues and arguments he wishes to make on appeal.”
Jackson v. Commonwealth, 587 S.E.2d 532 (Va. 2003). “Trial Court’s Proportionality Review Jackson asserts that the trial court erred in not examining whether the jury’s verdict imposing the penalty of death was based on passion or prejudice and whether the punishment was disproportionate in this case pursuant to Code § 17.1-313.…”
Gray v. Com., 645 S.E.2d 448 (Va. 2007). “Statutory Review Under Code § 17.1-313 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-313(A) and (C), we perform a statutorily mandated review of the death sentences.”
Lenz v. Commonwealth, 544 S.E.2d 299 (Va. 2001). “Nonetheless, we have reviewed the record, and we find no evidence that any such factor was present or influenced either the jury’s or the circuit court’s sentencing decision.”
Burns v. Commonwealth, 541 S.E.2d 872 (Va. 2001). “Bums appealed his non-capital convictions to the Court of Appeals pursuant to Code § 17.1-406. We certified that appeal (Record No.”
Bell v. Commonwealth, 563 S.E.2d 695 (Va. 2002). “5, the circuit court sentenced Bell in accordance with the jury verdict.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 17.1-313(A) — 15 cases
Porter v. Com., 661 S.E.2d 415 (Va. 2008). “Nor do I take issue with the majority's conclusion that the death sentence in this case, properly obtained, would not be excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases when reviewed under Code § 17.1-313. The undisputed procedural facts in this case are no…”
Juniper v. Com., 626 S.E.2d 383 (Va. 2006). “1-409 for consolidation with the appeal of Juniper's capital murder convictions (Record No.”
Winston v. Com., 604 S.E.2d 21 (Va. 2004). “The trial court imposed three death sentences, the sentences of imprisonment as fixed by the jury, as well as the fines imposed; however, the court suspended the imposition of fines. Winston noted appeals of his convictions on February 26, 2004.”
Yarbrough v. Commonwealth, 519 S.E.2d 602 (Va. 1999).
Gray v. Com., 645 S.E.2d 448 (Va. 2007). “Statutory Review Under Code § 17.1-313 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-313(A) and (C), we perform a statutorily mandated review of the death sentences.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 17.1-313(B) — 1 case
Patterson v. Commonwealth, 551 S.E.2d 332 (Va. 2001).
— Va. Code Ann. § 17.1-313(C) — 33 cases
Porter v. Com., 661 S.E.2d 415 (Va. 2008). “Nor do I take issue with the majority's conclusion that the death sentence in this case, properly obtained, would not be excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases when reviewed under Code § 17.1-313. The undisputed procedural facts in this case are no…”
Atkins v. Commonwealth, 534 S.E.2d 312 (Va. 2000). “Code § 17.1-313, which requires that this Court review a sentence of death, states in relevant part that we must consider "[w]hether the sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant.”
Powell v. Commonwealth, 590 S.E.2d 537 (Va. 2004). “Powell contended that by eliminating an intermediate review by the Court of Appeals, a defendant is denied the opportunity to perfect the issues and arguments he wishes to make on appeal.”
Emmett v. Commonwealth, 569 S.E.2d 39 (Va. 2002). “Emmett noted an appeal of his convictions, but on February 8, 2002 he filed a motion to withdraw that appeal.”
Andrews v. Com., 699 S.E.2d 237 (Va. 2010).
— Va. Code Ann. § 17.1-313(C)(1) — 28 cases
Porter v. Com., 661 S.E.2d 415 (Va. 2008). “Nor do I take issue with the majority's conclusion that the death sentence in this case, properly obtained, would not be excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases when reviewed under Code § 17.1-313. The undisputed procedural facts in this case are no…”
Juniper v. Com., 626 S.E.2d 383 (Va. 2006). “1-409 for consolidation with the appeal of Juniper's capital murder convictions (Record No.”
Gray v. Com., 645 S.E.2d 448 (Va. 2007). “Statutory Review Under Code § 17.1-313 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-313(A) and (C), we perform a statutorily mandated review of the death sentences.”
Emmett v. Commonwealth, 569 S.E.2d 39 (Va. 2002). “Emmett noted an appeal of his convictions, but on February 8, 2002 he filed a motion to withdraw that appeal.”
Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 576 S.E.2d 471 (Va. 2003).
— Va. Code Ann. § 17.1-313(C)(2) — 34 cases
Porter v. Com., 661 S.E.2d 415 (Va. 2008). “Nor do I take issue with the majority's conclusion that the death sentence in this case, properly obtained, would not be excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases when reviewed under Code § 17.1-313. The undisputed procedural facts in this case are no…”
Juniper v. Com., 626 S.E.2d 383 (Va. 2006). “1-409 for consolidation with the appeal of Juniper's capital murder convictions (Record No.”
Lenz v. Commonwealth, 544 S.E.2d 299 (Va. 2001). “Nonetheless, we have reviewed the record, and we find no evidence that any such factor was present or influenced either the jury’s or the circuit court’s sentencing decision.”
Bailey v. Commonwealth, 529 S.E.2d 570 (Va. 2000). “As mandated by Code § 17.1-313, we review the convictions and death sentences imposed upon Mark Wesley Bailey (Bailey), for the capital murder of Nathan Mark Bailey (Nathan), Bailey’s two-year-old son.”
Remington v. Commonwealth, 551 S.E.2d 620 (Va. 2001).
— Va. Code Ann. § 17.1-313(C)(l) — 1 case
Hudson v. Commonwealth, 590 S.E.2d 362 (Va. 2004).
— Va. Code Ann. § 17.1-313(D)(2) — 1 case
Jackson v. Commonwealth, 587 S.E.2d 532 (Va. 2003). “Trial Court’s Proportionality Review Jackson asserts that the trial court erred in not examining whether the jury’s verdict imposing the penalty of death was based on passion or prejudice and whether the punishment was disproportionate in this case pursuant to Code § 17.1-313.…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 17.1-313(E) — 25 cases
Porter v. Com., 661 S.E.2d 415 (Va. 2008). “Nor do I take issue with the majority's conclusion that the death sentence in this case, properly obtained, would not be excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases when reviewed under Code § 17.1-313. The undisputed procedural facts in this case are no…”
Bailey v. Commonwealth, 529 S.E.2d 570 (Va. 2000). “As mandated by Code § 17.1-313, we review the convictions and death sentences imposed upon Mark Wesley Bailey (Bailey), for the capital murder of Nathan Mark Bailey (Nathan), Bailey’s two-year-old son.”
Juniper v. Com., 626 S.E.2d 383 (Va. 2006). “1-409 for consolidation with the appeal of Juniper's capital murder convictions (Record No.”
Atkins v. Commonwealth, 534 S.E.2d 312 (Va. 2000). “Code § 17.1-313, which requires that this Court review a sentence of death, states in relevant part that we must consider "[w]hether the sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant.”
Emmett v. Commonwealth, 569 S.E.2d 39 (Va. 2002). “Emmett noted an appeal of his convictions, but on February 8, 2002 he filed a motion to withdraw that appeal.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 17.1-313(F) — 15 cases
Powell v. Commonwealth, 590 S.E.2d 537 (Va. 2004). “Powell contended that by eliminating an intermediate review by the Court of Appeals, a defendant is denied the opportunity to perfect the issues and arguments he wishes to make on appeal.”
Teleguz v. Com., 643 S.E.2d 708 (Va. 2007).
Powell v. Commonwealth, 552 S.E.2d 344 (Va. 2001).
Green v. Commonwealth, 546 S.E.2d 446 (Va. 2001).
Green v. Commonwealth, 580 S.E.2d 834 (Va. 2003).
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.