A. 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 Chapter 8 (§ 17.1-800 et seq.) of Title 17.1. Before imposing sentence or deferring disposition as authorized by § 18.2-251, 18.2-258.1, 19.2-298.02, or 19.2-303.6, the court shall state for the record that such review and consideration have been accomplished and shall make the completed worksheets a part of the record of the case and open for inspection. In cases tried by a jury, the jury shall not be presented any information regarding sentencing guidelines.
B. In any felony case, other than Class 1 felonies, in which the court imposes a sentence which is either greater or less than that indicated by the discretionary sentencing guidelines, the court shall file with the record of the case a written explanation of such departure.
C. In felony cases, other than Class 1 felonies, tried by a jury and in felony cases tried by the court without a jury upon a plea of not guilty, the court shall direct a probation officer of such court to prepare the discretionary sentencing guidelines worksheets. In felony cases tried upon a plea of guilty, including cases which are the subject of a plea agreement, the court shall direct a probation officer of such court to prepare the discretionary sentencing guidelines worksheets, or, with the concurrence of the accused, the court and the attorney for the Commonwealth, the worksheets shall be prepared by the attorney for the Commonwealth.
D. Except as provided in subsection E, discretionary sentencing guidelines worksheets prepared pursuant to this section shall be subject to the same distribution as presentence investigation reports prepared pursuant to subsection A of § 19.2-299.
E. Following the entry of a final order of conviction and sentence in a felony case, or following a deferred disposition as authorized by § 18.2-251, 18.2-258.1, 19.2-298.02, or 19.2-303.6, the clerk of the circuit court in which the case was tried shall cause a copy of such order or orders, the original of the discretionary sentencing guidelines worksheets prepared in the case, and a copy of any departure explanation prepared pursuant to subsection B to be forwarded to the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission within five days. Similarly, the statement required by §§ 19.2-295 and 19.2-303 and regarding departure from or modification of a sentence fixed by a jury shall be forwarded to the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission.
F. The failure to follow any or all of the provisions of this section or the failure to follow any or all of the provisions of this section in the prescribed manner shall not be reviewable on appeal or the basis of any other post-conviction relief.
G. The provisions of this section shall apply only to felony cases in which the offense is committed on or after January 1, 1995, and for which there are discretionary sentencing guidelines. For purposes of the discretionary sentencing guidelines only, a person sentenced to a community corrections alternative program pursuant to § 19.2-316.4 shall be deemed to be sentenced to a term of incarceration.
1994, 2nd Sp. Sess., cc. 1, 2; 1996, c. 552; 1997, c. 345; 1998, cc. 200, 353; 1999, c. 286; 2007, c. 259; 2019, c. 618; 2023, c. 34.
Notes of Decisions
West v. Dir. of the Dep't of Corr., 639 S.E.2d 190 (Va. 2007).
· cites it 8× “He further asserts that if he had not been convicted of that offense, he would have qualified under the sentencing guidelines provided pursuant to Code § 19.2-298.01 for a lower recommended sentence on the aggravated involuntary manslaughter conviction.”
Luttrell v. Commonwealth, 592 S.E.2d 752 (Va. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 8× “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…”
Slavek v. Hinkle, 359 F. Supp. 2d 473 (E.D. Va. 2005).
· cites it 6× “On state habeas review, the Supreme Court of Virginia dismissed claim (E), concluding that review was barred pursuant to Virginia Code § 19.2-298.01(F), which states that failure to follow any or all provisions of Virginia’s discretionary sentencing guidelines cannot serve as…”
Jett v. Commonwealth, 540 S.E.2d 511 (Va. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 6× “At the sentencing hearing, the probation officer presented a discretionary sentencing guideline calculation, see Code § 19.2-298.01, prepared on the basis that no firearm was used *255 in the commission of the crimes.”
Runyon v. Commonwealth, 513 S.E.2d 872 (Va. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 4× “Hill and others concerning the severity of Runyon’s condition, the effects that confinement could have on her, and as to alternative dispositions, such as supervised psychiatric treatment while under probation.”
Raheem Chabezz Johnson v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 755 S.E.2d 468 (Va. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 4× “01(F) (stating that a trial court’s decision not to follow the discretionary sentencing guidelines range “shall not be reviewable on appeal or the basis of any other post-conviction relief’). *182 In this case, appellant was convicted of first-degree murder.”
Billips v. Commonwealth, 630 S.E.2d 340 (Va. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 4× “'" (citation omitted) (emphasis added)); Code § 19.2-298.01(A) (providing that "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…”
Tevein Dewayne Harvey v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 777 S.E.2d 231 (Va. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “Code § 19.2-298.01. Defendants, of course, can testify and offer mitigation evidence from a variety of sources, including relatives, employers, friends, religious figures, and others.”
Smith v. Commonwealth, 496 S.E.2d 117 (Va. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “He contends the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the seventy-five-year sentence and eight hundred thousand dollar fine that was recommended by the jury.”
Hunt v. Commonwealth, 488 S.E.2d 672 (Va. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “Moreover, Code § 19.2-298.01(F) states: “The failure to follow any or all the provisions of [the sentencing guidelines] or the failure to follow any or all the provisions of this section in the prescribed manner shall not be reviewable on appeal or the basis of any other…”
Duong v. Commonwealth, 542 S.E.2d 47 (Va. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “See Code § 19.2-298.01. It argues that the sentences imposed were within the limits provided by law for the offenses for which Duong pled guilty and, therefore, are sentences that the trial court was authorized to impose.”
Robert Alvin Littleton, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 12× “01(F) states that “[t]he failure to follow any or all of the provisions of [Code § 19.2-298.01] . . . in the prescribed manner shall not be reviewable on appeal or [provide] the basis of any other post-conviction relief.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-298.01(A) — 11 cases
Billips v. Commonwealth, 630 S.E.2d 340 (Va. Ct. App. 2006).
“'" (citation omitted) (emphasis added)); Code § 19.2-298.01(A) (providing that "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…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-298.01(A)(ii) — 1 case
— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-298.01(B) — 23 cases
West v. Dir. of the Dep't of Corr., 639 S.E.2d 190 (Va. 2007).
“He further asserts that if he had not been convicted of that offense, he would have qualified under the sentencing guidelines provided pursuant to Code § 19.2-298.01 for a lower recommended sentence on the aggravated involuntary manslaughter conviction.”
Luttrell v. Commonwealth, 592 S.E.2d 752 (Va. Ct. App. 2004).
“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…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-298.01(C) — 1 case
— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-298.01(F) — 113 cases
Slavek v. Hinkle, 359 F. Supp. 2d 473 (E.D. Va. 2005).
“On state habeas review, the Supreme Court of Virginia dismissed claim (E), concluding that review was barred pursuant to Virginia Code § 19.2-298.01(F), which states that failure to follow any or all provisions of Virginia’s discretionary sentencing guidelines cannot serve as…”
Luttrell v. Commonwealth, 592 S.E.2d 752 (Va. Ct. App. 2004).
“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…”
Jett v. Commonwealth, 540 S.E.2d 511 (Va. Ct. App. 2001).
“At the sentencing hearing, the probation officer presented a discretionary sentencing guideline calculation, see Code § 19.2-298.01, prepared on the basis that no firearm was used *255 in the commission of the crimes.”
West v. Dir. of the Dep't of Corr., 639 S.E.2d 190 (Va. 2007).
“He further asserts that if he had not been convicted of that offense, he would have qualified under the sentencing guidelines provided pursuant to Code § 19.2-298.01 for a lower recommended sentence on the aggravated involuntary manslaughter conviction.”
Raheem Chabezz Johnson v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 755 S.E.2d 468 (Va. Ct. App. 2014).
“01(F) (stating that a trial court’s decision not to follow the discretionary sentencing guidelines range “shall not be reviewable on appeal or the basis of any other post-conviction relief’). *182 In this case, appellant was convicted of first-degree murder.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-298.01(G) — 1 case
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.