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

This case involved Reston Hospital Center's appeal of the State Health Commissioner's decision to grant Inova Health Care Services a certificate of public need to establish radiation therapy services at its Fair Oaks Hospital. The circuit court dismissed the appeal, ruling that Reston lacked standing as it was not sufficiently aggrieved. The Court of Appeals of Virginia reversed, holding that Reston qualified as a "party aggrieved" under the Virginia Administrative Process Act because the relevant statute required the Commissioner to consider the impact of the new services on the utilization and efficiency of Reston's competing services, and Reston had presented concrete evidence of potential harm as a nearby provider.

healthcarebusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, Brandon Epps pled guilty to simple possession of a controlled substance under a plea agreement and was found guilty by the trial court. Before sentencing, Epps moved to vacate the finding of guilt and continue the case or, alternatively, to suspend imposition of sentence under Code § 19.2-303 in a manner that would ultimately avoid any conviction, citing his ineligibility for a statutory deferred disposition due to a subsequent marijuana conviction. The trial court denied the motion, concluding it lacked authority to grant the requested relief. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed, holding that while courts may suspend imposition of sentence to mitigate punishment, neither Code § 19.2-303 nor related case law permits vacating a prior adjudication of guilt solely as an act of judicial clemency to avoid a conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Joel Aaron Burrell's conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute after police executed a search warrant at his home and found cocaine, a scale, baggies, and an owe sheet in a bedroom. Burrell moved to suppress his statements to police, arguing he had invoked his right to counsel during questioning, and also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to prove intent to distribute. The trial court denied the suppression motion, finding Burrell's statement about not answering certain questions without a lawyer to be ambiguous and equivocal, allowing further questioning, and the evidence at trial—including the items seized and expert testimony—was deemed sufficient to support the conviction. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed, holding that Burrell did not clearly invoke counsel and that the fact-finder could reasonably infer intent to distribute from the quantity of cocaine and related evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Robert Dickerson's bench-trial conviction for cocaine possession under Virginia Code § 18.2-250, based on evidence that police found the drug in his pocket during a search incident to arrest for public intoxication. On appeal, Dickerson challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to prove knowing possession, but the Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the conviction. The court held that the argument was not properly preserved under Rule 5A:18 because Dickerson's motion to strike addressed only the legality of the search, his closing argument was a single vague sentence asserting lack of ownership, and he failed to renew a sufficiency challenge after presenting his own testimony. The opinion reviewed precedents on contemporaneous objections and the requirements for preserving sufficiency claims in bench trials through specific motions or summation arguments.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a divorce between Gary Prizzia and Judit Prizzia, married in Hungary with a child born there, who later lived in Virginia before the wife filed for divorce and custody in Hungary in 2003 while the husband sought relief in Virginia courts. The Virginia trial court deferred to the Hungarian court's divorce and custody rulings under principles of jurisdiction but proceeded on equitable distribution, child support, and spousal support, including conditioning the wife's distribution award on compliance with visitation orders. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the trial court lacked initial child custody jurisdiction under the UCCJEA because Virginia was not the child's home state at the relevant time, while also ruling that Code § 20-107.3(E) did not authorize conditioning equitable distribution payments on unrelated custody compliance. The core reasoning centered on statutory limits on jurisdiction and court authority in domestic relations matters, leading to remand for further proceedings.

family lawprocedure

In Scott v. Commonwealth, the defendant was charged with multiple offenses, including first-degree murder and felony property damage, after he consumed alcohol at a bar, was pushed by another patron, and then drove recklessly out of the parking lot at high speed without headlights, striking and killing the patron, injuring another person, hitting a police car, and damaging a parked vehicle. Following a bench trial, he was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, felony property damage under Code § 18.2-137(B), and one count of felony hit-and-run. The Court of Appeals held that Scott had waived challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence for the manslaughter and hit-and-run convictions by failing to raise them at trial, that his sentence for manslaughter was within the statutory range and thus not excessive, and that the trial court erred as a matter of law by convicting him of felony property damage based only on criminal negligence rather than the higher mens rea required by the statute. The court therefore affirmed the manslaughter and hit-and-run convictions and sentence but reversed the felony property damage conviction and remanded for resentencing on the lesser-included misdemeanor offense under Code § 18.2-137(A).

criminal lawprocedure

In Stevens v. Commonwealth, the defendant appealed his convictions for robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, malicious bodily injury, two counts of murder, and related firearm charges, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress statements made during custodial interrogation. The Court of Appeals of Virginia, sitting en banc, affirmed the convictions. The court determined that Stevens' statement requesting a lawyer was ambiguous because the surrounding circumstances did not clearly indicate whether he sought counsel during questioning or only for his trial appearance. As a result, police were permitted to ask limited clarifying questions, and no violation of the Miranda right to counsel occurred.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Roger Lee Bynum's conviction for possession with intent to distribute heroin within 1,000 feet of school property under Virginia Code § 18.2-255.2. Bynum argued that two police officers' testimony about the distance, which relied on an aerial photograph with marked boundaries, should have been excluded as hearsay because the officers lacked personal knowledge. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the conviction, reasoning that the aerial photograph and the officers' scale verification through direct measurement did not constitute hearsay, as there was no out-of-court declarant, and any potential error from one officer's testimony was harmless because the second officer's independent calculation established the distance as approximately 910 feet.

criminal lawprocedure

In Kelso v. Commonwealth, the defendant was convicted in Hanover County Circuit Court of three counts of causing a juvenile to assist in distributing marijuana under Virginia Code § 18.2-255(A)(ii), based on transactions where the juvenile met a buyer in Hanover County, purchased marijuana from Kelso in Henrico County, and delivered it back in Hanover County. On appeal, Kelso argued that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction and that venue was improper because the offenses occurred in Henrico County. The Court of Appeals held that the jurisdiction argument was waived for failure to raise it at trial, and that venue was proper in Hanover County because the offense was a continuing one with essential elements occurring there, creating a strong presumption of venue. Therefore, the court affirmed the convictions.

criminal lawprocedure

Garrett Scott McNamara was convicted by a jury of a misdemeanor for possessing a machete on school grounds in violation of Code § 18.2-308.1(A). The Court of Appeals of Virginia reversed the conviction on appeal. The court held that the machete fell within the statutory exception in Code § 18.2-308.1(B)(vi), which permits possession of a knife having a metal blade in a motor vehicle on school grounds. The court reasoned that the machete qualified as such a knife under the plain and ordinary meaning of the statute, which the court was required to construe strictly against the Commonwealth.

criminal law

In Mohamed v. Commonwealth, the defendant appealed from the revocation of his suspended sentence following a 2002 conviction for obtaining money by false pretenses, arguing that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the original four-year suspension period had expired before the 2009 revocation hearing. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the revocation order, determining that the trial court retained jurisdiction since it had previously extended probation indefinitely under Code § 19.2-304 until restitution was paid in full, and Mohamed had not completed payment. The court also held that the ends of justice exception to Rule 5A:18 did not apply because the record did not show a miscarriage of justice, as the defendant remained subject to the court's authority during the extended probation period under Code § 19.2-306(A).

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Delacy Deon Hunter, who was convicted in the Circuit Court of Spotsylvania County of possessing a Schedule I controlled substance (ecstasy), possessing a controlled substance while simultaneously possessing a firearm, and carrying a concealed weapon. Hunter appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to show he possessed the firearm on or about his person under Code § 18.2-308.4(B) or carried a concealed weapon about his person under Code § 18.2-308(A). The Court of Appeals of Virginia reversed the conviction under § 18.2-308.4(B) and remanded for a new trial on the lesser-included offense under § 18.2-308.4(A), while reversing and dismissing the concealed weapon conviction. The court reasoned that the handgun, which was locked in the glove compartment and not readily accessible, did not meet the statutory requirement of being on or about Hunter's person for prompt and immediate use. The decision was based on the facts that Hunter was a passenger, the compartment was locked, and there was no evidence of his ongoing control or immediate access to the firearm.

criminal lawguns

This case involved Leslie Todd appealing a circuit court's order terminating her parental rights and permitting the adoption of her child by Lucretia Copeland without Todd's consent, based on statutes allowing adoption after six months without contact or if contrary to the child's best interests. The Court of Appeals of Virginia reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the six-month period of non-contact under Code § 63.2-1202(H) refers specifically to the time immediately before the adoption petition was filed, and that Todd had resumed contact during that period. The court also ruled that applying the best-interests statutes violated Todd's due process rights because the trial court failed to find that a continuing relationship with the child would be detrimental to the child's welfare, consistent with standards for terminating parental rights in other contexts like foster care.

family lawcivil rights

In Kotara v. Kotara, husband appealed a circuit court order denying his motion to end the court's jurisdiction over modification of spousal support awarded to wife in a divorce case. The Court of Appeals initially dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order was neither final nor an appealable interlocutory order, but it awarded attorney’s fees to wife. On rehearing, the court addressed whether it could award such fees when it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal. The court held that it has authority to award attorney’s fees under Code § 20-99(5) in divorce cases, even without jurisdiction over the underlying appeal, because the court has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction and the statute contains no limiting language requiring the case to be “properly before the court.” The matter was remanded to the trial court to determine the amount of fees.

family lawprocedure