Justia Virginia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a bench trial, Defendant was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter. The trial court subsequently granted the Commonwealth’s motion to amend the indictment and also found Defendant guilty of shooting another person in the commission of a felony. The court of appeals denied Defendant’s petition for appeal. Defendant appealed, asserting that the lower courts erred in concluding that the facts did not support Defendant’s claim that he acted in self-defense. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and vacated the convictions, holding that the facts in the record supported Defendant’s claim that he shot the victim in self-defense. View "Hines v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to computer solicitation of a child. Defendant subsequently submitted a pro se notice of appeal, arguing that he was forced to sign the plea deal out of fear and anxiety. The trial court subsequently sentenced Defendant in accordance with the plea agreement. Thereafter, Defendant’s counsel filed a notice of appeal and a motion to withdraw guilty plea. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction and, alternatively, that Defendant did not prove “manifest injustice” to withdraw his guilty plea. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court no longer had jurisdiction after the appeal was filed to consider Defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The court declined to address whether Defendant had shown manifest injustice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the lower courts erred in ruling that the trial court had lost jurisdiction to consider Defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea; but (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the motion on the alternative basis that Defendant failed to prove manifest injustice. View "Velazquez v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to the statutory rape of his half-sister, the aggravated malicious wounding of his father, and the malicious wounding of his stepmother. At sentencing, the trial court ordered lifetime probation following Defendant’s incarceration and ordered no contact with the victims as a condition of his suspended sentences. Defendant petitioned for appeal, challenging the trial court’s sentencing order. The Court of Appeals denied the petition, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering lifetime probation and imposing the no-contact condition on his suspended sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no merit in Defendant’s challenges to the sentencing order. View "Du v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of receiving stolen property and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. Before trial, Defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained when police conducted a warrantless search of a stolen motorcycle parked in the driveway of a home where Defendant resided. The trial court denied the motion to suppress. The court of appeals affirmed. Defendant appealed, arguing that the police officer trespassed when he walked up the driveway of Defendant’s residence without permission or a search warrant and conducted an unconstitutional search by removing the motorcycle tarp to reveal its VIN. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the officer’s search of the motorcycle was justified under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. View "Collins v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

While on probation for a petit larceny as a third offense conviction, Christopher Forbes pled guilty to robbery and abduction. Because the new convictions constituted a violation of Forbes’ probation, the circuit court held a probation revocation hearing. The court found Forbes in violation of the terms of his probation on the petit larceny conviction and revoked his suspended sentence. Forbes later filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that his counsel was ineffective in refusing to file an appeal after Forbes “made known his desire to do so.” The habeas court ruled that Forbes was denied the effective assistance of counsel in appealing the revocation of his suspended sentence. The Warden of the Lunenburg Correctional Center appealed, arguing that Forbes was not constitutionally entitled to counsel at the revocation hearing, and therefore, he was not entitled to effective assistance of counsel on appeal. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Forbes had no federal constitutional right to counsel in his probation revocation hearing, and therefore, he could not have been denied the effective assistance of that counsel. View "Walker v. Forbes" on Justia Law

Eliseo Granado was convicted of driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated. Granado filed a notice of appeal. On the deadline for filing a written statement of facts, Granado filed a proposed written statement of facts in the circuit court clerk’s office, but the clerk’s office did not include the original proposed written statement of facts in the contents of the record submitted to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals denied Granado’s petition for appeal, concluding that the statement of facts was not timely filed and was not part of the record to be considered on appeal, and therefore, the record was insufficient to address the assignments of error raised by Granado. Granado then filed a demand for review by a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals. The panel denied Granado’s petition. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Court of Appeals erred by ruling that there was no statement of facts in the record for its consideration because that the statement of facts was timely filed in the circuit court and was properly part of the record. View "Granado v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted of statutory burglary, possession of a firearm by a felon, assault and battery of a family member, pointing or brandishing a firearm, and credit card theft in violation of Va. Code Ann. 18.2-192(1)(a). At issue on appeal was whether section 18.2-192(1)(a) requires proof of the specific intent to use, sell or transfer a credit card that has been taken from a cardholder without consent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that credit card theft under the first prong of section 18.2-192(1)(a) is a general intent crime completed upon an unlawful taking and does not require that the Commonwealth allege or prove the specific intent required to support a conviction under the second prong of the statute. View "Scott v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony malicious bodily injury by means of a caustic substance, felony assault and battery of a law enforcement officer, obstruction of justice, and grand larceny from the person. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) Rule 5:17(c)(iii) precluded the Court from considering Defendant’s first and second assignments of error; and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support Defendant’s convictions for felony malicious bodily injury by means of a caustic substance, assault and battery of a law enforcement officer, and obstruction of justice. View "Wright v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm after conviction of a felony. Prior to sentencing, Defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing that he had a reasonable basis for asserting the defense of duress. The trial court denied the motion to withdraw the guilty plea, concluding that there was no evidence of imminent harm, and therefore, Defendant’s defense of duress was not reasonable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding no indication that any harm was imminent and in therefore denying Defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. View "Edmonds v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm after conviction of a felony. Prior to sentencing, defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing that he made a material mistake of fact in pleading guilty in that he had a reasonable basis for asserting the defense of necessity. The trial court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) prejudice to the Commonwealth is a relevant factor that should be considered when reviewing a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, and, in this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the prejudice to the Commonwealth outweighed any equities that favored granting Defendant’s motion; and (2) the Court of Appeals did not err in finding that Defendant did not have a reasonable defense to the charge of possession of a firearm after conviction of a felony. View "Small v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law