State Ex Rel. Daye v. McBride

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that defendant’s initial sentence was illegal and that the circuit court had a duty to correct it and apply the mandatory sentencing set forth in the statutes at issue
• concluding that defendant’s initial sentence was illegal and that the circuit court had a duty to correct it and apply the mandatory sentencing set forth in the statutes at issue
• holding that a defendant with two convictions under the UCSA, that subjects them to confinement in a state correctional facility, shall be sentenced under the recidivist statute rather than pursuant to the UCSA
• affirming use of prior convictions for drug offenses to impose life imprisonment under recidivist statutes
• “[H]istorically the prosecuting attorney has exercised discretion as to whether or not to file an information to seek recidivist enhancements under W. Va. Code, 61-11-18 (2000) and W. Va. Code, 61- 11-19 (1943).”
• “ ‘Where the language of a statute is free from ambiguity, its plain meaning is to be accepted and applied without resort to interpretation.’ Syllabus Point 2, Crockett v. Andrews, 153 W.Va. 714, 172 S.E.2d 384 (1970).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).