Second Look Sentencing Act
House Bill 2910, titled the Second Look Sentencing Act, would create a new procedure allowing courts in West Virginia to reconsider and potentially modify certain prison sentences after a person has served at least 10 years. The bill authorizes judges to grant relief if they find the person is not a danger to any person or the community, presents no credible risk of criminal conduct, demonstrates readiness for reentry, and that the interests of justice support modification. If a sentence is modified, the person would be placed on supervised release for up to five years after release from prison.
The bill also establishes a structured reapplication process for people who are denied relief, including waiting periods between applications and a final application opportunity for people who are at least 50 years old. In deciding whether to modify a sentence, courts must consider a range of factors, including the nature of the offense, the person’s age at the time of the offense and at the time of petition, rehabilitation efforts, correctional reports, prosecutorial input, victim statements, mental and physical health evaluations, and, in juvenile cases, diminished culpability and family circumstances. The court must state its reasons on the record, and either the state or the defendant may appeal a final order.
HB2910 would add a new section to West Virginia law in Chapter 62, Article 11A, creating a formal post-conviction resentencing mechanism for incarcerated people who have served at least 10 years. It would give circuit courts continuing authority to reduce sentences under specified findings, require consideration of rehabilitation and public safety factors, and create supervised release terms for those granted relief. The bill would affect incarcerated individuals serving long sentences, prosecutors, victims and their families, the Division of Corrections, and the courts that would hear and review these petitions.
The available context shows the bill was introduced and referred to the House Judiciary Committee, but there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes provided. Based on the text, the bill appears to reflect a reform-oriented approach focused on rehabilitation, aging, and individualized review of long sentences. Because no debate or vote history is included, there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from lawmakers in the provided materials.
The main points of potential contention are the scope of judicial discretion, the possibility of sentence reductions for serious offenses after 10 years, and the presumption of release for applicants age 50 or older. Supporters are likely to emphasize rehabilitation, declining risk with age, and fairness in long-term sentencing, while opponents may focus on public safety, victims’ interests, and concern that the bill could reopen sentences that were originally imposed as final. The bill’s requirement to consider victim statements, prosecutorial recommendations, and risk factors suggests an attempt to balance those concerns.