<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Virginia Lawyers Weekly &#187; Judge Robert P. Frank</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/judge-robert-p-frank/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 20:24:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Suppression Order Reversed in Meth-Lab Case&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/16/suppression-order-reversed-in-meth-lab-case/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/16/suppression-order-reversed-in-meth-lab-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 18:20:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert P. Frank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Search & Seizure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Court of Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74411</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A deputy who accompanied a social worker to a home to investigate the possible presence of children in a methamphetamine-manufacturing site had probable cause and exigent circumstances to enter the home, after observing items used to manufacture the drug in a burn pile outside the home and hearing movement inside when the deputy knocked at [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/16/suppression-order-reversed-in-meth-lab-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Upset Mom’s Messages Were Threats&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/upset-moms-messages-were-threats/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/upset-moms-messages-were-threats/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 May 2013 17:17:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert P. Frank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Court of Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74162</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A majority of the Court of Appeals affirms mother’s misdemeanor conviction for making telephone threats but reverses and dismisses her conviction for interfering with a 911 call for lack of evidence she disabled or destroyed any device required under the statute charged, Va. Code §18.2-164(B)( 2); the dissent argues both convictions should be reversed because [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/upset-moms-messages-were-threats/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Faulty Firearm Still Counts for Conviction&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/05/faulty-firearm-still-counts-for-conviction/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/05/faulty-firearm-still-counts-for-conviction/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2013 15:16:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert P. Frank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Court of Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73627</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although defendant contends the black firearm found near where he had thrown away an object consisted only of components of a firearm, as it had no barrel and was in a rusty and unmaintained condition, the Court of Appeals affirms his conviction for possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. Defendant argued the object [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/05/faulty-firearm-still-counts-for-conviction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Victim’s Loss List Supports Restitution Order&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/04/victims-loss-list-supports-restitution-order/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/04/victims-loss-list-supports-restitution-order/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2013 13:55:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert P. Frank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Court of Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73575</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Court of Appeals upholds an order requiring defendant to pay restitution of $2,000 for his theft of jewelry from the victim’s home, despite a claim that testimony of the victim and a list of her losses submitted to an insurance company did not support this value. Defendant contends the evidence of the victim’s loss [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/04/victims-loss-list-supports-restitution-order/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Appeals court allows do-over for procedural defaults&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/27/appeals-court-allows-do-over-for-procedural-defaults/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/27/appeals-court-allows-do-over-for-procedural-defaults/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:08:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Glen A. Huff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert J. Humphreys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert P. Frank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Stephen R. McCullough]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge William G. Petty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Court of Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73397</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Some procedural errors that may have meant dismissed appeals will no longer be fatal, a divided Virginia Court of Appeals said today in a trio of en banc cases. Specifically, in two cases, the court allowed amendments to retool assignments of error and to specify page references to show an appellate claim had been preserved. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/27/appeals-court-allows-do-over-for-procedural-defaults/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Companion’s Throw Justified Search&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/04/companions-throw-justified-search/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/04/companions-throw-justified-search/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2013 16:56:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert P. Frank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Court of Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72387</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Defendant is not entitled to suppress heroin found after a police officer saw a companion throw suspected contraband, the Court of Appeals says; the circumstances of their encounter in the stairwell of an apartment complex known for drug activity and the officer’s experience created a reasonable suspicion, and defendant’s conviction for possessing heroin with intent [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/04/companions-throw-justified-search/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sodomy Conviction Upheld for Penetration&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/17/sodomy-conviction-upheld-for-penetration/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/17/sodomy-conviction-upheld-for-penetration/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2013 16:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert P. Frank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Court of Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72002</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Court of Appeals affirms defendant’s jury trial sodomy conviction based on the 38-year old victim’s testimony that he licked her vagina; this case is controlled by Horton v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 606 (1998). Victim, a 38-year old female rented a room from defendant.  One day in July, he entered her room, forced her on [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/17/sodomy-conviction-upheld-for-penetration/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Sentence Change After DOC Transfer Error&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/17/no-sentence-change-after-doc-transfer-error/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/17/no-sentence-change-after-doc-transfer-error/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2013 16:35:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert P. Frank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Court of Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72000</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Even though the trial court said defendant would have been entitled to some relief on his pending post-trial motion for a sentence modification, defendant’s mistaken transfer from the local jail to the Department of Corrections meant the trial court no longer had authority to modify the sentence; the Court of Appeals affirms denial of defendant’s [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/17/no-sentence-change-after-doc-transfer-error/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Passenger’s Possession Proved&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/12/06/passengers-possession-proved/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/12/06/passengers-possession-proved/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:40:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert P. Frank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Court of Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=71268</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Court of Appeals affirms defendant’s bench trial conviction for possessing marijuana with intent to distribute; defendant got in his friend’s car with two large bags of marijuana in plain view and had seen his friend, a convicted felon, smoke marijuana before. A concurring opinion expresses concern that recent cases appear to conflate mere proximity [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/12/06/passengers-possession-proved/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No ED for ‘Negative Equity’ Real Estate&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/12/06/no-ed-for-negative-equity-real-estate/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/12/06/no-ed-for-negative-equity-real-estate/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:32:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Family Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Domestic Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert P. Frank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Court of Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=71258</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A divorce court did not err in declining to make an equitable distribution of a couple’s interests in two jointly owned parcels of land – one in Suffolk and one in Florida – that had a negative equity; the Court of Appeals says there was no abuse of discretion where the properties were essentially neither [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/12/06/no-ed-for-negative-equity-real-estate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
