William G. Petty

Anthony Victor Echavarry was convicted of possession of heroin and marijuana after controlled substances were found during a search of his personal belongings upon admission to jail following arrest on unrelated domestic violence charges. He moved to suppress the evidence, contending that it derived from an unlawful warrantless police entry into his home in response to a domestic disturbance report, which led to his arrest and the subsequent discovery. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress, concluding that the jail intake search was a routine inventory procedure conducted pursuant to arrest warrants issued by a magistrate and was sufficiently attenuated from any purported illegality of the home entry to purge any taint.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In Carrithers v. Harrah, Roy Carrithers appealed circuit court orders that affirmed a juvenile and domestic relations district court's money judgment against him for child support arrearages under Code § 16.1-278.18(A) and awarded attorneys' fees to Kimberly Harrah, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction due to improper service. The Court of Appeals of Virginia granted Harrah's motion to dismiss the appeal. The court held that the circuit court's March 29, 2011 order was a final judgment on the merits that resolved the jurisdictional issue and remanded remaining matters, so Carrithers's August 30, 2011 notice of appeal was untimely under Rule 5A:6(a) and Code § 8.01-675.3. The pendency of attorneys' fees motions did not affect the finality of that order or extend the appeal deadline.

family lawprocedure

Troy L. Mayfield was convicted of first-degree murder and use of a firearm in commission of the murder following a jury trial in Southampton County Circuit Court. On appeal, Mayfield argued that the trial court erred by refusing to strike a prospective juror for cause due to her familial relationship with two prosecution witnesses, by admitting evidence of a prior shooting incident involving Mayfield's half-brother and the victim to establish motive, and by finding the evidence sufficient to support the convictions. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the convictions, holding that the juror had confirmed her ability to remain impartial, the prior-incident evidence was relevant and not unfairly prejudicial for proving motive to prevent the victim from testifying, and the testimony and other evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, was sufficient for a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

criminal lawprocedure

Robert Alexander Sierra was convicted in a bench trial of possession of a controlled substance under Code § 18.2-250 after police discovered eight prescription pills, including two containing methylphenidate, on his person during a search incident to a DUI arrest. Sierra appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove he knowingly possessed the specific substance, as he claimed he believed the pills were aspirin or Tylenol given to him for back pain. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the conviction, ruling that the statute requires proof only that the defendant knew he possessed a controlled substance, not its precise identity. The court upheld the trial court's credibility determination that Sierra's explanation was not believable given the pills' appearance and markings, which indicated they were prescription medication.

criminal law

This case involved a workers' compensation dispute in which Ceres Marine Terminals and its insurer appealed a Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission award requiring payment of the unpaid balance of a medical bill ($25,664.22) to Jordan Young Institute for surgery performed on injured worker Eldon Armstrong. The employer had paid only a reduced amount based on the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Medical Fee Schedule (aligned with Medicare rates) and argued that the commission should have considered the provider's regular or reasonable rates, the fee schedule as evidence of prevailing rates, and barred the claim due to laches or evidence spoliation after a multi-year delay. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the award, holding that the employer failed to meet its burden of proving the billed amount exceeded the prevailing community rate for the services and that the employer had waived its laches and spoliation arguments by not complying with appellate briefing rules.

labor & employmenthealthcareprocedure

In this divorce case, George Cranwell sought to modify his child support obligation due to a change in income and to terminate his spousal support payments, arguing that his ex-wife Anne Campbell had cohabited with a boyfriend in a relationship analogous to marriage for over a year, as provided in their incorporated settlement agreement. The trial court modified child support but declined to terminate spousal support, finding insufficient evidence of cohabitation. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Virginia held that the evidence did not establish the required cohabitation, but that the trial court erred by failing to include the spousal support payments in the parties' gross income when calculating child support under the statutory guidelines. The court affirmed the denial of spousal support termination, reversed the child support calculation, and remanded for further proceedings.

family law