Don't Miss
Home / Uncategorized (page 14)

Uncategorized

Feed Subscription

DOE v. VIRGINIA BOARD OF DENTISTRY

Trial court did not err in affirming Board?s finding that the evidence was sufficient to prove appellant was in violation of 18 VAC 60-20-15(3); remainder of appellant?s questions are either procedurally defaulted or moot

Read More »

SOLESBEE v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in admitting evidence of other crimes to prove the identity of appellant as the person who robbed the victim and did not err in refusing to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the Commonwealth withheld exculpatory evidence

Read More »

NORTON v. CATHOLIC CHARITIES

Trial court lacked jurisdiction to terminate appellant?s parental rights to her children as no valid entrustment agreements were in effect at time trial court terminated

Read More »

WATSON v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in refusing to suppress evidence obtained during search of appellant where officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop for the crime of trespassing; evidence was sufficient to prove an intent to distribute the drugs

Read More »

KELVIN WATSON v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

Trial court did not err in refusing to suppress evidence obtained during search of appellant where officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop for the crime of trespassing; evidence was sufficient to prove an intent to distribute the drugs

Read More »

MORGAN v. WATKINS

Trial court did not err in finding that an award of spousal support to appellant was not warranted and denying her request for spousal support

Read More »

COUNTY OF WASHINGTON v. ROUSE

Commission erred in finding that appellee proved her injury was caused by a condition of her workplace and arose out of her employment when she suffered a fall while entering her place of employment

Read More »

CASH v. CLARK

Summarily affirmance ? trial court did not err in its modification of the amount of spousal support owed to appellee; part of appeal dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 5A:20(e)

Read More »

PEOPLES v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in finding evidence sufficient to support appellant?s convictions of distributing heroin and distributing controlled substance within 1000 feet of school or in denying appellant?s motion for continuance to obtain presence of witness at trial where trial court found witness was not a material witness

Read More »

ANTHONY L. PEOPLES v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

Trial court did not err in finding evidence sufficient to support appellant?s convictions of distributing heroin and distributing controlled substance within 1000 feet of school or in denying appellant?s motion for continuance to obtain presence of witness at trial where trial court found witness was not a material witness

Read More »

HALEY v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in allowing amendment of some of indictments, refusing to recuse itself after hearing proffer of Commonwealth?s evidence during pretrial motion hearing, and finding evidence sufficient to support appellant?s convictions of rape, object sexual penetration, and indecent liberties with a child

Read More »

JEFFREY LEWIS HALEY v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

Trial court did not err in allowing amendment of some of indictments, refusing to recuse itself after hearing proffer of Commonwealth?s evidence during pretrial motion hearing, and finding evidence sufficient to support appellant?s convictions of rape, object sexual penetration, and indecent liberties with a child

Read More »

CHAPPELL v. CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS

Summary affirmance ? Trial court did not err in changing goal of foster care plan for appellant?s child from return to parent/placement with relatives to adoption where evidence showed that was in child?s best interests

Read More »

HUTTER v. VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION

Trial court did not err in affirming decision of Commission awarding benefits to employee who, while entering employment contract for a specific term, did not leave work ?voluntarily,? as that word is used in Code § 60.2-618(1), when that term ended

Read More »

JOHNSON v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in its pretrial decision to disqualify attorney from representing appellant where attorney also represented witness in case in an unrelated matter even though both parties had signed waivers as trial court had judicial duty to ensure trial conducted within ethical standards and appeared fair to all who observe it

Read More »

MCGOWAN v. COMMONWEALTH

In a prosecution for cocaine distribution, the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a subsequent crime committed by the defendant for the purpose of impeaching the credibility of the defendant?s testimony during cross-examination. The judgment of the Court of Appeals upholding her convictions is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial if the Commonwealth be so advised.

Read More »

LITTLE v. COOKE

In a partnership derivative suit alleging counts for breach of fiduciary duty and legal malpractice, issues relating to an award of ?tax damages,? damages for over-charges, and wrongfully withheld funds, punitive damages and the award of attorneys? fees and expenses to be paid from a ?common fund? awarded to the partnership, and questions relating to the damages appropriate where real estate was allegedly sold below its value, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded.

Read More »

ALSTON v. COMMONWEALTH

Considering a constitutional challenge to the postrelease supervision component of a defendant's sentence, Code §§ 19.2-295 and 19.2-295.2 do not, as a matter of Virginia law, limit the relevant statutory maximum punishment to the 3 year term of active incarceration determined by the jury. Nor does the postrelease supervision exceed ?the relevant statutory maximum? for Sixth Amendment purposes, as it was imposed solely based on facts reflected in the jury verdict. Thus, the Court of Appeals did not err in holding that the postrelease supervision imposed under Code § 19.2-295.2 did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. The judgment is affirmed.

Read More »

MARTIN v. COMMONWEALTH

In light of Code § 19.2-305(B), which provides that a defendant placed on probation following conviction may be required to provide support for his wife or others, and the General Assembly's adoption of child support guidelines in § 20-108.2, in a criminal proceeding a trial court did not abuse its discretion in requiring a defendant to submit to court-ordered child support as a condition of a suspended sentence. The judgment of the Court of Appeals upholding that order is affirmed.

Read More »

ELLIOTT v. WARDEN (ORDER) (124926)

Upon consideration of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, respondent's motion to dismiss the petition is granted. Petitioner's claims alleging violations of the Commonwealth's obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) are rejected as being without merit, his various claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are rejected as not satisfying the two-pronged test enunciated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and his remaining claims are likewise rejected as lacking merit or as being either procedurally barred or improperly raised. <a href="http://www.courts.state.va.us:80/opinions/opnscvwp/1031610.pdf">(See the Opinion, 031610 Elliott (Larry) v. Commonwealth, dated 03/05/2004)</a><br>

Read More »

JACKSON v. COMMONWEALTH

In a case where a hospital emergency room nurse administered a physician-prescribed narcotic pain analgesic to the defendant, who shortly thereafter drove a car into a telephone pole, leading to a charge of violating Code § 18.2-266 by driving under the influence of a narcotic drug or any other self-administered intoxicant, the meaning of the statutory phrase is quite clear: the narcotic drug that the operator of the motor vehicle is "under the influence of" must be self-administered. Finding no merit in the Commonwealth's arguments, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the defendant's conviction for violation of Code § 18.2-266 is dismissed.

Read More »

DAGNER v. ANDERSON

In a wrongful death medical malpractice action against an emergency room physician, testimony from an expert medical witness as to the cause of the decedent?s injury and death was relevant to the question of the defendant physician?s alleged negligence in discharging the decedent from the emergency department of the hospital where she was being treated, but the trial court erred in accepting the tendered witness, whose familiarity with a particular condition asserted as the cause of injury and death lacked a sufficient basis. The case is remanded for new trial on all issues.

Read More »

BILLIPS v. COMMONWEALTH (124927)

Admissibility of opinion evidence based upon plethysmograph testing at a sentencing proceeding requires the same threshold finding of reliability of the scientific method as applies to the use of scientific evidence in judicial proceedings generally. The burden of making a prima facie showing of that foundation rests upon the proponent of the evidence, subject to the opponent?s opportunity for cross-examination and refutation. Here, the Court of Appeals erred in reversing that burden, requiring the defendant to introduce evidence of unreliability of this technique. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for resentencing.

Read More »

HOWELL v. COMMONWEALTH

It was an abuse of discretion for a trial court to require a defendant to pay for the installation of a security system as restitution for a burglary offense. Installation of a security system, while related to the burglary, was not caused by the offense as required by Code §§ 19.2-303, -305(B), and -305.1(A). The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

Read More »

BILLIPS v. COMMONWEALTH

Admissibility of opinion evidence based upon plethysmograph testing at a sentencing proceeding requires the same threshold finding of reliability of the scientific method as other expert proof. The burden of making a prima facie showing of that foundation rests upon the proponent of the evidence, subject to the opponent?s opportunity for cross-examination and refutation. Here, the Court of Appeals erred in reversing that burden, requiring the defendant to introduce evidence of unreliability of this technique. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for resentencing.

Read More »

JACKSON v. COMMONWEALTH (124928)

In a case where a hospital emergency room nurse administered a physician-prescribed narcotic pain analgesic to the defendant, who shortly thereafter caused his car to collide with a telephone pole, leading to a charge of violating Code § 18.2-266 by driving under the influence of a narcotic drug or any other self-administered intoxicant, the meaning of the statutory phrase is quite clear: the narcotic drug that the operator of the motor vehicle is "under the influence of" must be self-administered. Finding no merit in the Commonwealth's arguments, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the defendant's conviction for violation of Code § 18.2-266 is dismissed.

Read More »

DAVIS v. JOHNSON

The record refutes a habeas corpus petitioner's claim that the trial court failed adequately to consider a supplemental submission, and no abuse of discretion is found in the circuit court's consideration of the remaining habeas claims after a belated appeal was granted to the petitioner on other points. The circuit court had discretion to determine, where the record was sufficient, whether the remaining habeas claims were sufficient as a matter of law, were procedurally barred, or should be dismissed without prejudice. There was no across-the-board requirement flowing from the grant of a belated appeal that the remaining claims be dismissed without prejudice. The judgment is affirmed.

Read More »

PEREZ v. COMMONWEALTH

Petitions in juvenile court and an undated order provided clear and non-conjectural proof of prior juvenile adjudications of guilt for acts that would have been felonies if committed by an adult, and that such convictions occurred before the date of the incident for which defendant is presently charged. Thus the Commonwealth?s evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's conviction for felony possession of a firearm, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Read More »
Scroll To Top