Home / 2007 / May

Monthly Archives: May 2007

JOHNNIE KENSLEY BROWN, JR. v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in finding the evidence was sufficient to support appellant?s conviction of grand larceny; this Court finds the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to support the trial court?s venue findings; appellant?s conviction is affirmed

Read More »

LOUIS LATOUR, INC. v. VIRGINIA ABC BOARD

Trial court did not err in applying the appropriate standard of review, in finding that appellant unilaterally amended the parties? agreement without good cause, in finding that appellant discriminated against appellee, in finding that appellant acted in bad faith, in fashioning an appropriate remedy under Code Section 4.1-409, and in awarding attorney?s fees; judgment affirmed

Read More »

BROWN v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in finding the evidence was sufficient to support appellant?s conviction of grand larceny; this Court finds the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to support the trial court?s venue findings; appellant?s conviction is affirmed

Read More »

BATTLE v. CITY OF PORTSMOUTH

Trial court did not err in finding the evidence was sufficient to terminate appellant?s residual parental rights under to Code Section 16.1-283(B); judgment affirmed

Read More »

LUZIER v. PENN LINE CORP

Summary affirmance ? no error in commission?s finding appellant failed to prove that he sustained a brain injury causally related to his compensable injury by accident, and remained totally disabled as a result of that brain injury; commission?s decision is affirmed

Read More »

THOMPSON v. HUFFMAN LITTER SERVICE

Summary affirmance - commission?s decision sustaining appellees? motion to stay appellant?s pending claim for permanent and total disability benefits and removing the claim from the hearing docket because it was premature is summarily affirmed

Read More »

ERWIN ALEXANDER EDWARDS v. COMMONWEALTH

This Court finds the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard, and failed to make factual determinations required by the correct standard, in deciding whether appellant should be allowed to proceed pro se; appellant?s convictions are vacated and the case is remanded to the trial court

Read More »

BOBBY JASPER, S/K/A BOBBY JASPAR v. COMMONWEALTH

This Court holds the admission of appellant?s DMV transcript did not violate the Confrontation Clause; appellant?s conviction of reckless driving while his license was revoked after having twice been convicted of driving under the influence is affirmed

Read More »

WILLIAM CHARLES ANDERSON v. COMMONWEALTH

Appellant?s convictions of credit card theft are affirmed as the evidence and the inferences drawn from it were sufficient to allow the jury to conclude that appellant had the requisite intent to use the stolen credit cards

Read More »

EDWARDS v. COMMONWEALTH

This Court finds the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard, and failed to make factual determinations required by the correct standard, in deciding whether appellant should be allowed to proceed pro se; appellant?s convictions are vacated and the case is remanded to the trial court

Read More »

JASPAR v. COMMONWEALTH

This Court holds the admission of appellant?s DMV transcript did not violate the Confrontation Clause; appellant?s conviction of reckless driving while his license was revoked after having twice been convicted of driving under the influence is affirmed

Read More »

ANDERSON v. COMMONWEALTH

Appellant?s convictions of credit card theft are affirmed as the evidence and the inferences drawn from it were sufficient to allow the jury to conclude that appellant had the requisite intent to use the stolen credit cards

Read More »

WALKER v. COMMONWEALTH

No error in trial court?s finding the evidence sufficient to convict appellant of attempted carjacking and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony

Read More »

MILLER v. MILLER

Summary affirmance ? trial court?s order finding it had no jurisdiction to reopen the divorce proceedings in order to equitably distribute the parties? marital property is summarily affirmed

Read More »

EDWARD JAMES TINSLEY v. COMMONWEALTH

Court finds appellant's double jeopardy argument barred by Rule 5A:18 and ends of justice exception does not apply; evidence sufficient to support convictions of aggravated sexual battery, animate object sexual penetration and statutory rape

Read More »
Scroll To Top