Justia Virginia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant pled guilty to attempted rape, a felony. Defendant's sentencing order contained a provision stating that the sentencing court would reduce the conviction from a felony to a misdemeanor following Defendant's incarceration and successful completion of probation. After Defendant violated his probation, he filed a motion to vacate the sentencing order as void ab initio and to dismiss his charge of the probation violation, arguing that the circuit court did not have the power to reduce his conviction to a misdemeanor under the circumstances. The circuit court denied Defendant's motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) in this case, the circuit court did not have the power to render a judgment reducing Defendant's conviction from a felony to a misdemeanor more than five years after its entry of the sentencing order; and (2) the ultra vires provision in the sentencing order resulted in the entire sentencing order being void ab initio. View "Burrell v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After Jennifer Bing was arrested on suspicion of drug possession and distribution, a lieutenant conducted a full cavity search on Bing. Almost two years later, Bing filed a complaint against several law enforcement officers, alleging assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and that the search was illegal. The trial court found that the statute of limitations barred Bing's claim and dismissed with prejudice the cause of action. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err when it granted Defendants' plea of the statute of limitations because Bing was "confined" within the meaning of Va. Code Ann. 8.01-243.2, and the body cavity search related to the conditions of her confinement. Therefore, a one-year statute of limitations applied. View "Bing v. Haywood" on Justia Law

Defendant Roger Stevens was found guilty of, among other crimes, two counts of murder, two counts of use of a firearm in the commission of murder, conspiracy to commit robbery, and malicious bodily injury. The court of appeals affirmed Stevens' conviction. At issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress his statement to police during a custodial interrogation because, in light of the circumstances, Defendant's request for a lawyer was ambiguous and, therefore, the officers were entitled to ask further clarifying questions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the facts of this case, the officers could have reasonably viewed Stevens' statement as ambiguous, and thus they were permitted to ask Stevens clarifying questions. View "Stevens v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Albemarle County enacted a zoning ordinance governing construction on slopes within the county. Under the waiver provision of the county code, the planning commission was authorized to grant a waiver from the restrictions otherwise imposed by the ordinance. Kent Sinclair, who owned property in the county, filed a complaint seeking, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that the county exceeded the power delegated to it by the General Assembly in violation of the Dillon Rule because its procedure for considering waiver applications was not authorized by state law. The circuit court granted summary judgment against Sinclair. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's judgment that the decision to grant or deny waiver applications may be delegated to the planning commission, as the delegation was legislative in nature and not authorized by state law. Accordingly, in enacting the waiver provision, the county exceeded its authority from the General Assembly in violation of the Dillon Rule and the waiver provision was void. Remanded. View "Sinclair v. New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court upheld two capital murder convictions against Alfredo Rolando Prieto as well as convictions for rape, grand larceny, and two counts of felonious use of a firearm. The Court remanded for resentencing based on a finding of error in the penalty phase of the trial. Following a new penalty phase, the circuit court entered a final order imposing the death penalty. The Supreme Court affirmed after addressing Prieto's several assignments of error, holding that the circuit court did not err in its judgment and that there was no reason to commute or set aside the sentences of death. View "Prieto v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Judy Maretta, as the named beneficiary of a Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) policy, received FEGLI benefits upon the death of her ex-husband. Jacqueline Hillman, the widow of the deceased, filed an action against Maretta, claiming that pursuant to Va. Code Ann. 20-111.1(D), Maretta was liable to her for the death benefits received. Maretta claimed that the state law was preempted by 5 U.S.C. 8705 and 8705 because the state statutes granted FEGLI benefits to someone other than the named beneficiary in violation of FEGLIA's terms. The circuit court concluded that section 20-111.1(D) was not preempted by FEGLIA and entered judgment against Maretta. The Supreme Court reversed and entered judgment for Maretta, holding that because Congress intended for FEGLI benefits to be paid and to belong to a designated beneficiary, FEGLIA preempts section 20-111.1(D). View "Maretta v. Hillman" on Justia Law

Mark Lahey was convicted of two counts of attempted first degree murder. The court of appeals and Supreme Court refused Lahey's petitions for appeal. Lahey subsequently filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Lahey submitted his habeas petition for filing on the last day of the limitations period but did not complete payment of the filing fee until days later. The circuit court dismissed the petition as untimely under Va. Code Ann. 8.01-654(A)(2) upon determining that, under the express requirements of Va. Code Ann. 8.01-655, the petition could not be filed, or deemed filed, without proper payment of the filing fee. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Lahey's habeas petition was time-barred under section 8.01-654(A)(2). View "Lahey v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Jean Moreau & Associates brought this suit against the Health Center Commission for the County of Chesterfield (HCC), a municipal corporation, seeking a declaratory judgment and alleging claims for breach of contract and quantum meruit. The circuit court dismissed Jean Moreau's claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Jean Moreau did not comply with the mandatory procedural requirements of the Virginia Public Procurement Act in bringing its breach of contract claim against HCC, the circuit court did not err in concluding that the claim was barred; and (2) the circuit court did not err in concluding that Jean Moreau's quantum meruit claim was barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity for HCC's development and operation of Springdale, an independent living facility, because (i) municipal corporations performing governmental functions are immune from quantum meruit claims, (ii) HCC was not entitled to absolute immunity simply because it was created by a county and not a municipality, but (iii) Springdale served a governmental function. View "Jean Moreau & Assocs., Inc. v. Health Ctr. Comm'n" on Justia Law

In 1994, Michael Haas was convicted at a bench trial in the circuit court of sodomy committed upon his two sons in 1992 and 1993, when they were eleven and nine years of age, respectively. After Haas' petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied, Hass filed a petition for a writ of actual innocence based on non-biological evidence, including recantation evidence. The court of appeals denied Haas' request to refer the case to the circuit court for an evidentiary hearing and dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion in (1) declining to refer the case back to the circuit court for an evidentiary hearing, and (2) finding that Haas failed to carry his burden of proof and, accordingly, granting the Commonwealth's motion to dismiss his petition. View "Haas v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a guilty plea, Steven DeMille was convicted of rape. Before DeMille's release from incarceration, the attorney general filed a petition seeking the civil commitment of DeMille as a sexually violent predator. After a bench trial, the circuit court entered an order declaring DeMille to be a sexually violent predator. At issue on appeal was whether in a proceeding under the Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act, the determination that the respondent is likely to engage in sexually violent acts must be based solely on expert testimony that states an opinion to that effect in express terms. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the factual determination of whether a respondent is a sexually violent predator likely to engage in sexually violent acts is to be based on the totality of the record, including but not limited to expert testimony. View "DeMille v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law