Squire v. Com.

• Citation: 199 S.E.2d 534,214 Va. 260
• Parties: Stephen Earl SQUIRE v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia.
• Decision Date: 08 October 1973
• Court: Supreme Court of Virginia

Page 534

199 S.E.2d 534

214 Va. 260

Stephen Earl SQUIRE v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia.

Supreme Court of Virginia.

Oct. 8, 1973.

John C. Lowe, Charlottesville (F. Guthrie Gordon, III, Charlottesville, on brief), for plaintiff in error.

Linwood T. Wells, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. (Andrew P. Miller, Atty. Gen., on brief), for defendant in error.

Before SNEAD, C.J., and I'ANSON, CARRICO, HARRISON, COCHRAN, HARMAN and POFF, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Stephen Earl Squire was tried in the Municipal Court of the City of Charlottesville and convicted of disorderly conduct in violation of Code § 18.1--253.2. The offense occurred in Scott Stadium at the University of Virginia in the County of Albemarle and within one mile of the corporate limits of Charlottesville. The defendant appealed to the court below and was again convicted. He is here on a writ of error limited to a consideration of whether or not the Municipal Court of Charlottesville had jurisdiction to try the defendant.

Defendant says that Charter of the City of Charlottesville contains no grant giving its municipal court jurisdiction over misdemeanors committed within one mile of the city limits, and that no such jurisdiction is conferred on the municipal court by the general law. He then argues that the jurisdiction of the court below is derivative and that since the municipal court was without jurisdiction in the first instance the corporation court did not have jurisdiction on appeal.

Section 33 of the Charter of the City of Charlottesville provides in part that 'The judge of the municipal court of said city . . . shall have such jurisdiction as is provided by general law . . ..'

Code § 16.1--124 provides in part: 'Each municipal court having jurisdiction of criminal matters shall have: . . . (4) Such other jurisdiction, exclusive or concurrent, as may be conferred upon it by general law, or by the provisions of its municipal charter.'

Code § 15.1--141 provides in part that 'The jurisdiction of the corporate authorities of each town or city, in criminal matters, shall extend one mile beyond the corporate limits of such town or city . . ..'

In Murray v. Roanoke, 192 Va. 321, 64 S.E.2d 804 (1951), the city sought to convict a defendant upon a warrant charging him with keeping a gambling house in violation of the city code, the offense admittedly having occurred in the County of Roanoke outside the corporate limits of the city. In reversing and dismissing the conviction, we said:

'We find nothing in the charter of the city of Roanoke, which expressly or impliedly gives extraterritorial effect to its ordinances or empowers the city to enact ordinances effective beyond its corporate limits. Its ordinances do not of themselves purport to extend their provisions beyond the borders of the city.

'Code, sections 15--560 (presently § 15.1--141) and 17--139 do not support to extend the effect of municipal ordinances beyond the corporate limits of a city. They are statutes of enforcement of the effective law within the area specified. Their purpose is plain, that is, to prevent the territory contiguous to a city from becoming a refuge for criminals, and to confer on the corporation courts of cities power to enforce the police regulations and law of the area involved.' 192 Va. at 326--27, 64 S.E.2d at 808.

It will be noted that we expressly said that Code § 15.1--141 is a statute of enforcement of The effective law within the area specified, and in setting forth the purpose of the statute, we referred to corporation Courts of cities, using the plural. We meant courts not of record as well as courts of record. The effective law involved here is a state law concerning disorderly conduct, a criminal matter, and the area is a college stadium located within one mile of Charlottesville.

Code § 15.1--141 deals with 'jurisdiction' in 'criminal matters' and how far such jurisdiction 'extends'. In Murray, and referring specifically to the statute and the meaning of jurisdiction as used therein, we said:

'The question involved arises in the confusion of the meaning of the word 'jurisdiction,' employed in the statutes. 'Jurisdiction,' as applied to judicial proceedings, broadly means the power, right, or authority in the courts to hear, determine, and enforce the law in cases, causes or controversies. It is the power to try and declare the law. It is the authority by which judicial officers take cognizance of, and apply and enforce the law as distinguished from the power to enact law. (Citing authorities.)' 192 Va. at 327, 64 S.E.2d at 808.

In the instant case we are considering...