199 S.E.2d 534 (Va. 1973), Squire v. Commonwealth

Citation:199 S.E.2d 534, 214 Va. 260
Party Name:Stephen Earl SQUIRE v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia.
Attorney:[7] John C. Lowe (F. Guthrie Gordon, III on brief), for plaintiff in error.
Case Date:October 08, 1973
Court:Supreme Court of Virginia
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 534

199 S.E.2d 534 (Va. 1973)

214 Va. 260

Stephen Earl SQUIRE

v.

COMMONWEALTH of Virginia.

Supreme Court of Virginia.

October 8, 1973.

Page 535

        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 [214 Va. 261] 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 . . ..'

Page 536

        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,...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP