Murillo-Rodriguez v. Commonwealth – June 23, 2009
Murillo-Rodriguez challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to strike at the close of all the evidence, and the CAV decision that his appeal of that ruling was barred by Rule 5A:18.
Media Links
Fairfax County Police Press Release
Details
From
The Court of Appeals of Virginia (one-judge order)
Counsel
Michael C. Sprana for appellant.
Raymond F. Morrogh and Marc J. Birnbaum (Office of the Commonwealth’s Attorney) for appellee.
Assignments of Error
1. The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the petitioner waived his motion to strike the evidence by not renewing his motion to strike or making a motion to set aside the verdict after putting on evidence [in] his own defense.
2. The Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s denial of the petitioner’s motion to strike.
Date Granted
6-19-2009
Alderman v. Commonwealth – June 23, 2009
Alderman challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to prove he feloniously drove in disregard of a signal from a law enforcement officer to stop his vehicle, in violation of Code s. 46.2-817. In a one-judge order, CAV concluded he did not preserve in the trial court any argument pertaining to the “willful or wanton” element of the offense. It also concluded the evidence was sufficient to prove Alderman endangered the officer who stopped him at a license check point, because his conduct in speeding away from the officer, “nearly striking [him] with a mirror,” was “‘conduct that raises the specter of endangerment[,] the evil contemplated and proscribed by’” Code s. 46.2-817. (quoting Tucker v. Commonwealth, 38 Va. App. 343, 564 S.E.2d 144 (2002)).
Details
From
The Court of Appeals of Virginia (one-judge order)
Counsel
Everett P. Shockley for appellant.
Patrick R. Jensen (Office of the Commonwealth’s Attorney) for appellee.
Assignments of Error
1. The trial court erred when it held that the evidence was sufficient to convict Alderman of feloniously driving in disregard of a signal from a law enforcement officer to bring his motor vehicle to a stop.
Date Granted
6-18-2009
Barnes v. Commonwealth – June 16, 2009
Trial court found police intentionally withheld exclupatory evidence from magistrate when requesting search warrant, but denied pre-trial motion to suppress fruits of the search. CAV found the officer’s omission insufficient to negate probable cause under the Franks test.
Media Links
Alexandria Times
Details
From
The Court of Appeals of Virginia (unpublished decision)
Counsel
Kevin T. Gaynor (OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER) for appellant.
Gregory W. Franklin (OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL) for appellee.
Assignments of Error
1. The Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s denial of the appellant’s motion to suppress all evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant issued on June 16, 2006, and executed at the appellant’s home because the affidavit in support of the search warrant was insufficient to establish probable cause and the affidavit contained incomplete information in support of probable cause and also omitted crucial information that negated probable cause and that this information was incompletely included or omitted with a reckless disregard for the truth in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Virginia Code § 19.2-54.
2. The Court of Appeals erred in finding that the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the convictions for aggravated malicious wounding and use of a firearm [in] the commission of aggravated malicious wounding because the evidence failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed these offenses and the evidence also was insufficient to support the conviction for aggravated malicious wounding when it did not establish that Carmon had suffered a severe injury with significant and permanent physical impairment.
Date Granted
6-15-2009
Krasucki v. Commonwealth – June 16, 2009
Review of trial court’s denial of pre-trial motion to dismiss when the Commonwealth failed to produce the video recording of Krasucki’s stop and arrest.
Details
From
The Circuit Court of the City of Chesapeake; V. Thomas Forehand, Judge.
Counsel
Andrew A. Protogyrou and M. Colston Jones (Protogyrou & Rigney, P.L.C.) for appellant.
Stephanie G. Johnson (Office of the Commonwealth’s Attorney) for appellee.
Assignments of Error
1. The Court of Appeals of Virginia erred when it denied the petition for appeal because the Commonwealth violated appellant’s right to due process of law when it failed to produce the video recording of appellant made during his stop and arrest. The Court of Appeals erred when it affirmed the trial court’s decision to overrule appellant’s pretrial motion to dismiss the charges against him.
2. The Court of Appeals of Virginia erred when it denied the petition for appeal because the Commonwealth violated appellant’s right to due process of law when it destroyed the video recording of appellant made during his stop and arrest.
Date Granted
6-11-2009
Carroll v. Johnson – June 16, 2009
Pro se habeas appellant contends he was not credited for time served. He argues the trial court erred in finding it lacked jurisdiction to hear his claim, and erred in declining to hold an evidentiary hearing as to his claim. Carroll also argues the trial court erred in finding that, even assuming it had jurisdiction, his claim was without merit.
From
The Circuit Court of Stafford County; Charles S. Sharp, Judge.
Counsel
John Jay Carroll (pro se) for the appellant.
Susan B. Curwood (Office of the Attorney General) for the appellee.
Assignments of Error
1. The trial court erred in ruling that it did not have habeas corpus jurisdiction to hear the petitioner’s claim that he was not being credited for time spent in jail on the Stafford charges towards his sentence.
2. The trial court erred in ruling that assuming it did have jurisdiction, petitioner’s claim lacks merit.
3. The trial court erred in not granting petitioner’s request for an evidentiary [hearing] to settle factual disputes necessary for a determination of petitioner’s claim.
Date Granted
6-12-2009