Judge, Court of Appeals of Virginia
Desposito v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Virginia · 2012-06-05
The case involved Michael Anthony Desposito's conviction for driving as a habitual offender, second or subsequent offense. He challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained at a traffic checkpoint, claiming the Hanover County checkpoint plan gave officers too much discretion because it specified only a 30-minute minimum duration with no maximum and directed that the checkpoint occur "during lunchtime" without precise hours. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the conviction, holding that the checkpoint was constitutionally valid under the Fourth Amendment. The court reasoned that the plan, combined with the department's actual practice of limiting checkpoints to two hours and the common understanding of "lunchtime" as midday (implemented here from 11:10 a.m. to 12:45 p.m.), supplied explicit neutral criteria that adequately constrained officer discretion and prevented arbitrary stops of individuals.
criminal lawprocedure
Beshah v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Virginia · 2012-05-08 · cited 11×
Netsanet Beshah was convicted of four counts of forgery under Virginia Code § 18.2-172 for falsifying entries in a Medicaid patient’s medical records while employed as a licensed practical nurse at a skilled nursing facility. She appealed, contending that the evidence failed to prove intent to defraud or prejudice to another and that the trial court erred by disqualifying her counsel due to a potential conflict of interest arising from the attorney’s simultaneous representation of multiple co-defendants in related cases. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the convictions, holding that Beshah’s documented administration of medications and performance of treatments she had not actually provided created a risk of misleading physicians in their treatment decisions, from which intent could be inferred. The court further held that the disqualification was proper because a potential conflict existed at the time of the pretrial ruling, as one of the attorney’s other clients might testify against Beshah, and no evidence showed an earlier disqualifying conflict.
criminal lawhealthcareprocedure
Wells v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Virginia · 2012-05-01 · cited 9×
Whitney Lyn Wells was convicted of embezzlement after a jury found that, while working as a Macy’s cashier, she gave an unauthorized customer steep markdowns on Polo shirts and allowed the customer to take additional shirts without paying, causing losses exceeding $200. On appeal, she challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury that the Commonwealth must prove she personally benefited from the property, and the court’s decision not to define “fraud” in response to a juror’s question. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the conviction, holding that Code § 18.2-111 is satisfied when property is converted to the use of another with intent to permanently deprive the owner, and that the evidence showed Wells acted in her employment capacity to benefit the customer. The court further held that the Commonwealth’s instruction correctly stated the law and that “fraudulent” is a plain, ordinary term that required no further definition; any possible error on that point was harmless because a separate instruction already supplied the meaning of a fraudulent act.
criminal lawpropertyprocedure
Price v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Virginia · 2012-03-13 · cited 5×
In Price v. Commonwealth, the Court of Appeals of Virginia addressed whether Chadwich Deshawn Price’s conviction for robbing a twelve-year-old victim, S.S., could stand when intruders took her cell phone, iPod, and camera from her purse in the living room while she was held at gunpoint in her mother’s bedroom at the opposite end of the trailer. The court affirmed the robbery conviction, holding that the property was taken from S.S.’s presence. It reasoned that Virginia law broadly construes the “presence” element of robbery to include constructive possession, so that a victim remains in control of property throughout her residence even if confined to one room; the violence and intimidation used by the intruders prevented S.S. from protecting items elsewhere in the home, satisfying the statutory requirements under Code § 18.2-58. The decision relied on precedents such as Bunch v. Commonwealth and Clay v. Commonwealth, which similarly upheld robbery convictions involving property taken from other parts of a dwelling while the victim was present on the premises.
criminal law
Towler v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Virginia · 2011-12-20 · cited 200×
Jamie Lee Towler was convicted in circuit court of robbery, attempted robbery, statutory burglary, two counts of using a firearm during those felonies, and wearing a mask, all arising from an armed demand for money and Oxycontin at a CVS pharmacy counter in Altavista, Virginia. He appealed solely on grounds that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed, holding that testimony from the pharmacy technician and pharmacist established the use of a firearm and taking of money by threat, while a store manager who knew Towler identified him by voice, gait, and build. Additional evidence from an informant who conducted a controlled drug purchase with Towler the next day, together with Towler’s own statements admitting he robbed the store for Oxycontin and received over $200, supplied proof of identity and intent. The court further upheld the burglary conviction on the ground that Towler entered the store intending to commit the separate felony of possessing a Schedule II controlled substance.
criminal law
West v. West
Court of Appeals of Virginia · 2011-12-13 · cited 29×
In this divorce case, Norvell West appealed circuit court rulings that arose after a 2008 Court of Appeals remand for recalculating child support. The circuit court had held that the appellate mandate barred it from considering motions to modify child and spousal support, that it lacked jurisdiction without a formal reinstatement order, and that it could vacate all post-remand interlocutory orders. The Court of Appeals reversed in part, ruling that the mandate did not restrict the trial court’s authority to address statutory support modifications outside the mandate’s specific scope, and remanded for consideration of changed circumstances. It affirmed the vacation of the interlocutory orders, explaining that temporary support rulings remain under the trial court’s control and may be set aside without additional findings.
family lawprocedure