Justia Virginia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of malicious wounding and robbery. Petitioner was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment for malicious wounding and five years’ imprisonment for robbery, to be served concurrently. On appeal, Petitioner asserted that the trial court erred in instructing the jury as to the elements of malicious wounding and that insufficient evidence supported the convictions. The court of appeals denied the appeal. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing, among other things, that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the malicious wounding jury instruction. The habeas court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court improperly instructed the jury and the elements of malicious wounding; but (2) Petitioner was not prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to object to the instruction, as the erroneous malicious wounding instruction did not render the trial fundamentally unfair. View "Dominguez v. Pruett" on Justia Law

At issue in these two appeals was Va. Code Ann. 8.01-384(A), which provides that the absence of a contemporaneous objection when there is no opportunity to make a timely objection at the time a ruling or order is made shall not prejudice a party on motion for a new trial or on appeal. In both cases - Maxwell v. Commonwealth and Rowe v. Commonwealth - the court of appeals held that Va. Sup. Ct. R. 5A:18 barred consideration of issues on appeal when the litigant had failed to make a contemporaneous objection in the circuit court. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the court of appeals’ judgment in Maxwell, holding that the court of appeals erred in determining that Maxwell’s assignment of error was defaulted for lack of a contemporaneous objection because Maxwell and his counsel lacked the opportunity to make an objection contemporaneously with the circuit court’s act of proceeding in Maxwell’s absence; and (2) affirmed the court of appeals’ judgment in Rowe, as Rowe failed to articulate a cognizable objection at a time when the circuit court could take appropriate action, and Rowe did not lack the opportunity to make his objection to the circuit court. View "Maxwell v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of unreasonably refusing to submit to a breath test in violation of Va. Code Ann. 18.2-268.3. Defendant appealed, arguing in large part that the State did not establish a prima facie case of unreasonable refusal against Defendant because the arresting officer’s “Declaration and Acknowledgment of Refusal” form was erroneously admitted into evidence for lack of compliance with the procedures set forth in section 18.2-268.3(B) and (C). The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction, holding (1) Defendant was not prejudiced by the admission of the refusal form, and its admission was, at most, harmless error; and (2) the circuit court did not err when it denied Defendant’s motion to strike the Commonwealth’s evidence on the theory that, absent the admission of the refusal form, the Commonwealth failed to prove the elements of the unreasonable refusal offense, as the evidence was sufficient to establish Defendant’s guilt as a matter of law. View "D'Amico v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Antonio Amos was convicted of assaulting his estranged wife, Felecia Amos, and ordered not to contact or harass Felecia. Felecia subsequently alleged that Antonio had harassed her. The Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney sought and obtained a rule to show cause against Antonio. After a hearing on the show cause order, the trial court ruled that Antonio had not violated the terms and conditions of his probation, held Felecia in contempt of court, and sentenced Felecia to jail for ten days. Felecia appealed. The court of appeals reversed Felecia’s summary contempt conviction, concluding that the trial court deprived Felecia of any opportunity to object at the time of the ruling and that, pursuant to Va. Code Ann. 8.01-384(A), Felecia did not default the arguments raised on appeal by failing to object at the time the trial court held her in contempt. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err in holding that the contemporaneous objection exception in section 8.01-384(A) allows a litigant who was precluded by the trial court from asserting a contemporaneous objection to the court’s ruling to raise the issue on appeal, notwithstanding the provisions of Va. Sup. Ct. R. 5A:18. View "Commonwealth v. Amos" on Justia Law

Appellant was found guilty of felony murder and two felony drug offenses. The court of appeals reversed Appellant's felony murder conviction but refused to remand the case to the circuit court for resentencing of Appellant's two felony drug convictions on the basis that such relief was outside the scope of Appellant's assignment of error. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err in refusing to remand Appellant's two felony drug convictions for resentencing after reversing Appellant's felony murder conviction, as Appellant suffered no reviewable injury from the fact that the sentencing guidelines would have been different had he not been convicted of felony murder at the time the circuit court sentenced him for his felony drug convictions. View "Woodard v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of felony possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. The circuit court accepted the guilty plea and entered it in the record. Defendant subsequently asked the circuit court to withhold a finding of guilt and defer the disposition. The circuit court denied the request, concluding that it lacked the authority to withhold a finding of guilt and defer adjudication for possible future dismissal of the charges. The court then entered an order finding Defendant guilty. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court’s accepting and entering Defendant’s guilty pleas in a written order was not a formal adjudication of guilt; and (2) thus, the court erred in concluding it no longer had the inherent authority to consider any disposition other than to impose the legislatively prescribed punishment. View "Starrs v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for felony child abuse and neglect. Defendant made an Alford plea, and the circuit court found Defendant guilty and placed Defendant on supervised probation. The following year, while attempting to purchase a firearm, Defendant completed a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms form (ATF form) indicating she was not under indictment or information for a felony. Defendant was later found guilty of willfully and intentionally making a false statement on the ATF form. Defendant’s probation was subsequently revoked, and Defendant was convicted on the earlier child neglect charge. The court of appeals affirmed. Defendant appealed, arguing that she was not under indictment when she filled out the ATF form because her indictment was extinguished upon making an Alford plea. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding that Defendant knew she was under indictment when she completed the ATF form. View "Maldonado-Mejia v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant, a teacher at a vocational school who also supervised students on the sidewalk outside his classroom, was indicted on three counts of taking indecent liberties with a minor by a person in a custodial or supervisory relationship. A jury convicted Defendant on all three counts. At issue on appeal was whether the evidence showed Defendant had a custodial or supervisory relationship over A.G., a student at the school, who was not one of Defendant’s students but whom Defendant saw every day when he monitored the sidewalk. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could find that the proscribed acts occurred while Defendant maintained a custodial or supervisory relationship with A.G. View "Linnon v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of child pornography. Defendant appealed, contending that the trial court erred in failing to suppress the evidence seized from his computer. The court of appeals dismissed Defendant’s petition for appeal. The court declined to address the Fourth Amendment question and instead ruled, sua sponte, that defendant’s assignment of error was insufficient under Va. Sup. Ct. R. 5A:12(c). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant’s assignment of error was sufficiently detailed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 5A:12(c). Remanded with directions to review the petition for appeal on the merits. View "Findlay v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder and violation of a protective order. Defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred by failing to order a second competency evaluation after his counsel discovered new information regarding Defendant’s life history and physical trauma he suffered in his youth. The court of appeals denied Defendant’s petition for appeal. Defendant appealed, arguing that the court of appeals erred in denying his appeal because there was probable cause to believe he was incompetent to stand trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in finding that there was no probable cause to order a second competency evaluation. View "Dang v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law