The General Assembly, to ensure the imposition of appropriate and just criminal penalties, and to make the most efficient use of correctional resources, especially for the effective incapacitation of violent criminal offenders, has determined that it is in the best interest of the Commonwealth to develop, implement, and revise discretionary sentencing guidelines. The purposes of the Commission established under this chapter are to assist the judiciary in the imposition of sentences by establishing a system of discretionary guidelines and to establish a discretionary sentencing guidelines system which emphasizes accountability of the offender and of the criminal justice system to the citizens of the Commonwealth.
The Commission shall develop discretionary sentencing guidelines to achieve the goals of certainty, consistency, and adequacy of punishment with due regard to the seriousness of the offense, the dangerousness of the offender, deterrence of individuals from committing criminal offenses and the use of alternative sanctions, where appropriate.
1994, 2nd Sp. Sess., cc. 1, 2, § 17-233; 1998, c. 872.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2004–2025 · leading case:
Luttrell v. Commonwealth, 592 S.E.2d 752 (Va. Ct. App. 2004).
Luttrell v. Commonwealth, 592 S.E.2d 752 (Va. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “In all felony cases, other than Class 1 felonies, the court shall (i) have presented to it the appropriate discretionary sentencing guidelines worksheets and (ii) review and consider the suitability of the applicable discretionary sentencing guidelines established pursuant to…”
Woodard v. Commonwealth, 754 S.E.2d 309 (Va. 2014).
· cites it 2× “1-800. The Commission "develop[s] discretionary sentencing guidelines" to help achieve the General Assembly's policy goals in punishing and deterring convicted criminals.”
Christopher Drew Brooks v. Commonwealth, No. 2540023 (Va. Ct. App. Jan. 28, 2004).
· cites it 2× “Code § 17.1-801. In 1999, the General Assembly directed the commission “to develop a risk assessment instrument for utilization in the sentencing guidelines for sex offenses.”
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.