Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

208 W. Va. 700

542 S.E.2d 863

State v. Sears

West Virginia Supreme Court

Decided December 6, 2000

West Virginia Supreme Court · decided 2000-12-06

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently June 2014

14 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2000-12-06

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

*706MAYNARD, Chief Justice,

¶1dissenting.

¶2(Filed Dec. 6, 2000)

¶3I dissent because I believe that it was within the trial court’s discretion to reject an untimely plea agreement in order to control its docket. The facts show that the appellant had several days in which to accept the plea offer made by the prosecuting attorney, but did not decide to do so until after all pre-trial matters were concluded and the trial was scheduled to begin the next day. If the appellant wanted to offer a plea, he should have done so in a timely manner.

¶4Our law states that trial courts have discretion to refuse plea bargains. The trial court in this case properly exercised its discretion and stated on the record the reason for its decision. The refusal of untimely pleas is a useful tool with which trial courts can control their over-crowded dockets, promote judicial economy, save jury fees, and avoid needless delays in the administration of justice. By reversing the trial court, and fashioning a needless and overly broad new rule, the majority unreasonably snatches this useful tool from the hands of trial courts. Accordingly, I dissent.

/208/wva/700 · .json · Public domain