Jones v. Com.
| Decision Date | 11 January 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 781665,781665 |
| Citation | 261 S.E.2d 538,220 Va. 666 |
| Parties | Lester Wayne JONES v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. Record |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Richard G. Poinsett, Hampton, for appellant.
James E. Kulp, Deputy Atty. Gen. (Marshall Coleman, Atty. Gen., on brief), for appellee.
Before CARRICO, HARRISON, COCHRAN, HARMAN, POFF and COMPTON, JJ.
This appeal involves a claim of double jeopardy in a case where felonious offenses were committed by an adult defendant against a juvenile victim. The determinative issue is whether in such a case the requirement of a preliminary hearing is jurisdictional or merely procedural in nature.
The case arose out of an incident occurring December 1, 1977, in which the defendant, Lester Wayne Jones, and an accomplice robbed Joseph Viets at gunpoint. In the course of the encounter, the accomplice shot at Viets. As a result of the incident, the defendant was charged with attempted murder, robbery, and the use of a firearm while committing robbery.
The defendant was given a preliminary hearing on the charges in general district court, criminal division, and held for the grand jury. He was indicted by the grand jury and then tried upon his pleas of not guilty in the circuit court, sitting without a jury.
During presentation of the Commonwealth's evidence at the trial in circuit court, it was disclosed that the victim, Joseph Viets, was only 17 years old at the time the offenses were committed against him. At the conclusion of the Commonwealth's case, the defendant moved to dismiss the indictments on the ground that, because the victim was a juvenile and the preliminary hearing had not been held in juvenile and domestic relations district court, the circuit court was without jurisdiction in the case. The court granted the motion and dismissed the indictments.
The defendant was arrested and charged with the same offenses. This time, he was given a preliminary hearing in juvenile and domestic relations district court. He was certified to the grand jury and reindicted. He then moved the circuit court to dismiss the indictments on the ground that "continued prosecution would constitute double jeopardy." The court denied the motion. In a subsequent trial, the defendant was convicted of all three charges and sentenced to a total of 21 years in the penitentiary, with 12 years suspended.
Pertinent to resolution of the issue involved here are the following provisions of Code § 16.1-241:
On appeal, the defendant continues to assert that his initial preliminary hearing was defective under Code § 16.1-241(I) because the victim was a juvenile and the hearing was not held in juvenile and domestic relations district court. He now says, however, that the defect was not jurisdictional but was merely procedural. 1 His argument is that the hearing afforded an adult defendant under § 16.1-241(I), as with the preliminary hearing in an ordinary criminal case, is not a matter of constitutional requirement but of statutory right. Because the right to such a hearing is merely statutory, the defendant maintains, any defect in the hearing is waived unless timely raised and, therefore, only a question of procedure, and not of jurisdiction, is involved.
In his case, the defendant says, the defect in his initial preliminary hearing was not raised before commencement of his first trial in circuit court and, therefore, the defect was waived. Accordingly, the defendant concludes, the circuit court had jurisdiction over his case and jeopardy attached to the proceeding, thus requiring that his plea of double jeopardy be sustained when the Commonwealth attempted to prosecute him a second time.
The defendant acknowledges that in Peyton v. French, 207 Va. 73, 80, 147 S.E.2d 739, 743 (1966), we held jurisdictional the requirement of the juvenile court statutes relating to a hearing in juvenile court before certification of a case to the grand jury. The defendant argues, however, that the decision in French was required because the case involved a juvenile Offender, rather than a juvenile victim. The rationale of French, the defendant says, should be confined to cases involving juvenile offenders and not extended to situations where the only basis of the juvenile and domestic relations district court's jurisdiction is the presence of a juvenile victim. There is no "logical reason," the defendant opines, to treat differently a hearing in juvenile and domestic relations district court with an adult defendant and a juvenile victim, on the one hand, and, on the other, a hearing in general district court where both defendant and victim are adults.
In our opinion, the language of Code § 16.1-241(I) is clear and unambiguous. In no uncertain terms, the language vests in juvenile and domestic relations district courts Exclusive original jurisdiction to conduct preliminary hearings in cases of adult defendants charged with felonious offenses, except murder and manslaughter, committed against juvenile victims. And, while the Code section does permit the preliminary hearing in general district court of additional charges arising out of the same transaction in which the murder or manslaughter of a juvenile occurs, even this authority of a general district court is dependent upon a transfer from a juvenile and domestic relations district court.
The phrase "exclusive original jurisdiction" in Code § 16.1-241 must be given its plain meaning. When given such meaning, the phrase imports requirements of a jurisdictional, rather than procedural, nature, and it signifies exclusivity of jurisdiction in a juvenile and domestic relations district court to conduct a preliminary hearing in the type of case involved here.
The wisdom of the enactment of statutory provisions having these effects does not concern this court. We believe, however, that there is "logical reason," apparent on the face of the juvenile court statutes, for the requirement that felony cases, except murder or manslaughter, involving juvenile victims must have their commencement, as a jurisdictional proposition, in juvenile and domestic relations district court. The juvenile court statutes evince a clear legislative intent that the welfare of the child shall be paramount. In the implementation of that intent, no distinction is made between a child who is a defendant and one who is a victim. By including juvenile victims among the classes over which a juvenile and domestic relations district court has jurisdiction, the General Assembly has recognized the obvious situations where juvenile victims would have as great a need of the protective measures available to such a court as juvenile offenders.
For these reasons, we disagree with the defendant's contentions concerning whether the preliminary hearing required by Code § 16.1-241(I) is jurisdictional or procedural. For the same reasons, we must also disagree with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in its decision in Nottingham v. Zahradnick, 573 F.2d 193, Cert. denied, 439 U.S. 970, 99 S.Ct. 464, 58 L.Ed.2d 430 (1978).
Nottingham involved the interpretation of Code § 16.1-158(7), which was amended and reenacted in 1978 as § 16.1-241(I), the focus of the present dispute. The only change...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Thomas
...convicted, and dismiss the appeal because jeopardy does not attach where there is want of jurisdiction. See Jones v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 666, 672, 261 S.E.2d 538, 541 (1980). In such a case, the Defendant's conviction in the lower court would stand because his ten-day period for appeal ha......
-
Harris v. Com.
...his valued right to have his guilt or innocence determined before the first trier of fact." Id. See Jones v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 666, 672, 261 S.E.2d 538, 542 (1980) (concurring opinion). Furthermore, the record clearly demonstrates that the mistrial was granted solely to protect defendan......
-
Unger v. Commonwealth
...that question does not meaningfully change based upon the range of punishment that the court may impose.[5] Unger instead relies on Jones, 220 Va. at 666, Pope v. Commonwealth, 19 Va.App. 130 (1994), superseded by statute, 1996 Va. Laws ch. 914, as recognized in Burke v. Commonwealth, 29 Va......
-
Williams v. Com.
...and his conviction is void. See Cheeks v. Commonwealth, 20 Va.App. 578, 582-83, 459 S.E.2d 107, 109 (1995); Jones v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 666, 672, 261 S.E.2d 538, 541-42 (1980). Much of our analysis on that issue has already been performed by this Court in Karim v. Commonwealth, 22 Va.App......