(1984). As Justice Workman stated in Women’s Health Center of West Virginia, Inc. v. Panepinto, 191 W.Va. 436, 442, 446 S.E.2d 658, 664 (1993): In Bonham, this Court noted that, "the United States Supreme Court has ... recognized that a state supreme court may set its own constitutional protections at a higher level than that accorded by the federal constitution.” ... Based on the principle that " ‘[t]he 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])]’ Syllabus Point 2, Pauley v. Kelly, 162 W.Va. 672, 255 S.E.2d 859 (1979) ...” we ruled in Bonham, that this state's due process clause affords a criminal defendant greater protections than the federal counterpart... (<HOLDING>); see also West Virginia Citizens Action Group
holding that doctrine does not violate due process holding following whitney that defendant was deemed to have waived right to a de novo jury trial where failure to appear at de novo trial was due to his own neglect in not informing the clerks office of his change of address holding that imposition of more severe sentence following trial de novo does violate defendants due process rights holding possibility of more severe sentence on retrial after appeal or collateral attack does not violate double jeopardy or due process protections recognizing de novo standard of review