"This Court has determined repeatedly that the West Virginia Constitution may be more protective of individual rights than its federal counterpart." State ex rel. Carper v. West Virginia, Parole Bd., 203 W. Va. 583, 590 n. 6, 509 S.E.2d 864, 871 n. 6 (1998). In other words, we may "interpret state constitutional guarantees in a manner different than the United States Supreme Court has interpreted comparable federal constitutional guarantees."

Second, in those instances where a parolee is incarcerated and is not given a prompt hearing, I believe the proper remedy is to seek a writ of mandamus to compel a hearing. See State ex rel. Carper v. W. Va. Parole Bd., 203 W. Va. 583, 509 S.E.2d 864 (1998) (petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel the state parole board to review him for parole on an annual basis). Because such a remedy exists, it is not necessary for this Court to create from whole cloth a right to good time credit when a revocation hearing is not promptly held.

Syl. pt. 7, Albright v. White, 202 W. Va. 292, 503 S.E.2d 860 (1998). Accord State ex rel. Carper v. West Virginia Parole Bd., 203 W. Va. 583, 589, 509 S.E.2d 864, 870 (1998); West Virginia Human Rights Comm'n v. Garretson, 196 W. Va. 118, 124, 468 S.E.2d 733, 739 (1996). In this regard,

Gordon contends, however, that an earlier release upon good time, denies his right to appear before the Parole Board to demonstrate his compliance with the purposes of the parole system, i.e., that he has reformed and will be a law abiding member of society. See, State ex rel. Carper v. West Virginia Parole Board, 203 W. Va. 583, 586, 509 S.E.2d 864, 867 (1998) (stating that parole hearings constitute a "substantial interest subject to legal protection"), and Nibert v. Carroll Trucking Company, 139 W. Va. 583, 588, 82 S.E.2d 445, 449 (1954) (indicating that the purpose of this State's parole system is to afford the prisoner an opportunity to show that he or she has reformed and will be a law abiding member of the community). According to Gordon, the denial of that right renders his sentence under W.Va.Code, 61-8B-3 (1984), unconstitutional and requires that his sentence be modified or set aside.

Therefore, unless this Court addresses the matter, the Carper violation could be repeated by the Parole Board thus again escaping appellate review. Mr. Stollings contends that this Court's decision in State ex rel. Carper v. West Virginia Parole Bd., 203 W. Va. 583, 509 S.E.2d 864 (1998), required the Parole Board to set out findings as to why two years would have to pass before he could have another parole hearing. We agree.

Therefore, our constitution provides greater impeachment protections than the Constitution of the United States. See State ex rel. K.M. v. W. Virginia Dep't of Health & Human Res ., 212 W. Va. 783, 794 n.15, 575 S.E.2d 393, 404 n.15 (2002) ("it is clear that our Constitution may offer greater protections than its federal counterpart."); State ex rel. Carper v. W. Virginia Parole Bd ., 203 W. Va. 583, 590 n.6, 509 S.E.2d 864, 871 n.6 (1998) ("This Court has determined repeatedly that the West Virginia Constitution may be more protective of individual rights than its federal counterpart."); State v. Bonham , 173 W. Va. 416, 418, 317 S.E.2d 501, 503 (1984) ("[T]he United States Supreme Court has also recognized that a state supreme court may set its own constitutional protections at a higher level than that accorded by the federal constitution. There are a number of cases where state supreme courts have set a higher level of protection under their own constitutions."); Syl. pt.2, Pauley v. Kelly , 162 W. Va. 672, 255 S.E.2d 859 (1979) ("The provisions of the Constitution of the State of West Virginia may, in certain instances, require higher standards of protection than afforded by the Federal Constitution.").

eighth amendment to the United States Constitution, criminal punishment of chronic alcoholics for public intoxication held unconstitutional); Syl. Pt. 1, State v. Bonham , 173 W. Va. 416, 317 S.E.2d 501 (1984) ; Queen v. W. Virginia Univ. Hosps., Inc., 179 W. Va. 95, 106, 365 S.E.2d 375, 386 (1987) ("It is not yet clear just what the federal courts will determine to be adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond, and we, of course, reserve our option to extend broader protections to workers than the federal courts may require."); Syl. Pt. 3, State v. Neuman , 179 W. Va. 580, 581, 371 S.E.2d 77, 78 (1988) ("The West Virginia Constitution, art. III, § 10, provides a criminal defendant a level of due process protection at least equal to that provided through the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution, and may, in certain circumstances, require higher standards of protection."); Syl. Pt. 1, State v. Osakalumi , 194 W Va. 758, 461 S.E.2d 504 (1995) ; State ex rel. Carper v. W. Va. Parole Board , 203 W. Va. 583, 590 & n.6, 509 S.E.2d 864, 871 & n.6 (1998) ("This Court has determined repeatedly that the West Virginia Constitution may be more protective of individual rights than its federal counterpart."); State v. Mullens , 221 W. Va. 70, 89, 650 S.E.2d 169, 188 (2007) ("we may interpret state constitutional guarantees in a manner different than the United States Supreme Court has interpreted comparable federal constitutional guarantees") (internal citation omitted). In a scholarly article in the West Virginia Law Review, the late Justice Thomas B. Miller reviewed this Court's precedents and found two common analytical strands in the relevant cases.

In that regard, it is well established in our precedents that this Court has the authority to "interpret [the West Virginia] Constitution to require higher standards of protection than afforded by comparable federal constitutional standards," Pauley v. Kelly , 162 W. Va. 672, 679, 255 S.E.2d 859, 864 (1979) (internal citation omitted); see alsoState v. Mullens , 221 W. Va. 70, 89, 650 S.E.2d 169, 188 (2007) (" ‘This Court has determined repeatedly that the West Virginia Constitution may be more protective of individual rights than its federal counterpart.’ State ex rel. Carper v. West Virginia Parole Bd., 203 W.Va. 583, 590 n. 6, 509 S.E.2d 864, 871 n. 6 (1998). In other words, we may ‘interpret state constitutional guarantees in a manner different than the United States Supreme Court has interpreted comparable federal constitutional guarantees.’

Syllabus Point 3, Donley v. Bracken, 192 W.Va. 383, 452 S.E.2d 699 (1994). State ex rel. Carper v. W. Va. Parole Bd. , 203 W. Va. 583, 586, 509 S.E.2d 864, 867 (1998).

"This Court has determined repeatedly that the West Virginia Constitution may be more protective of individual rights than its federal counterpart." State ex rel. Carper v. West Virginia Parole Bd ., 203 W.Va. 583, 590 n. 6, 509 S.E.2d 864, 871 n. 6 (1998). In other words, we may "interpret state constitutional guarantees in a manner different than the United States Supreme Court has interpreted comparable federal constitutional guarantees."