Brown v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 06 September 2022
• Docket Number: Record No. 0722-21-3
• Citation: 75 Va.App. 388,877 S.E.2d 156
• Parties: Jaquan Ramone BROWN v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia
• Court: Virginia Court of Appeals

75 Va.App. 388

877 S.E.2d 156

Jaquan Ramone BROWN

v.COMMONWEALTH of Virginia

Record No. 0722-21-3

Court of Appeals of Virginia, Lexington.

SEPTEMBER 6, 2022

Jennifer T. Stanton, Senior Assistant Public Defender (Virginia Indigent Defense Commission, on briefs), for appellant.

Leanna C. Minix, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Present: Chief Judge Decker, Judges Humphreys and Friedman

OPINION BY JUDGE FRANK K. FRIEDMAN

On January 6, 2020, Jaquan Brown ("appellant") was indicted in the Circuit Court for the City of Danville for multiple felonies. He was arrested on these indictments on January 9, 2020, and was held without bond until his trial. In the months after his indictment, COVID-19 swept across the Commonwealth. On August 28, 2020, appellant moved to dismiss his charges, alleging a speedy trial violation. The trial court denied this motion.

Appellant was tried alongside a co-defendant, A.F., at a two-day jury trial in May 2021. At the close of the trial, A.F. was acquitted of all charges. Appellant was convicted of statutory burglary, robbery, and use of a firearm in the commission of robbery, in violation of Code §§ 18.2-90, 18.2-58, and 18.2-53.1, respectively. At a sentencing hearing in June 2021, the trial court imposed the jury's recommended sentence of twenty-eight years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Appellant assigns error to the trial court's denial of his speedy trial claims and to its rejection of his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to uphold the guilty verdict. He further asserts that the declaration of a judicial emergency constituted an improper usurpation of power that violated the separation of powers under Article I, Section 5 and Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution of Virginia.

Declaration of Judicial Emergency

On March 16, 2020, the Supreme Court of Virginia declared a judicial emergency based on the COVID-19 pandemic and issued an order suspending all non-emergency court proceedings and stating that "all deadlines are hereby tolled and extended, pursuant to Va. Code § 17.1-330(D)" for a period of twenty-one days. Order Declaring a Judicial Emergency in Response to COVID-19 Emergency 1-2 (Va. Mar. 16, 2020).¹

Additional emergency orders were issued by the Supreme Court every twenty-one days after the initial order. On May 1, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a clarification order which stated that the prior emergency orders had tolled the statutory deadlines of the Speedy Trial Act in Code § 19.2-243. EDO of May 1, 2020, at 2. The Supreme Court's emergency orders following this May 1, 2020 order stated that "[a]s provided in the Clarification Order, deadlines imposed by the Speedy Trial Act, Va. Code § 19.2-243, are tolled during the ongoing Period of Judicial Emergency." See, e.g. , EDO of May 6, 2020, at 5.

On May 6, 2020, the Supreme Court ordered that all jury trials be "suspended and shall be continued until further notice." Id. On June 22, 2020, the Supreme Court ordered that no jury trials would be held in any locality until the Supreme Court had approved a plan for the safe resumption of juries. EDO of June 22, 2020, at 5-7.

On August 28, 2020, while these orders were still in effect, appellant filed a motion to dismiss his charges, alleging that the orders violated his statutory right to a speedy trial and that he had been held in jail longer than allowed by Code § 19.2-243. He filed a separate motion entitled "Motion to Continue Case, Under Protest," which "assert[ed] speedy trial on both constitutional and statutory bases in this case."² At the hearing on the motions, the trial court judge noted that the jurisdiction's plan for resuming jury trials had been submitted to the Supreme Court and remained pending. Appellant's motions were denied, and his jury trial was ultimately held on May 17 and 18, 2021.

Timeline for Calculation of Speedy Trial

Appellant was indicted on January 6, 2020. He was arrested on the indictments three days later, on January 9, 2020, and was held without bond. His case was scheduled to be set at docket call on February 25, 2020. However, appellant agreed to continue the case to the following docket call on April 21, 2020.³

On March 16, 2020, the Supreme Court of Virginia declared a judicial emergency and suspended all non-emergency court proceedings. EDO of Mar. 16, 2020, at 1-2. On May 6, 2020, the Supreme Court ordered that all jury trials were "suspended and shall be continued until further notice." EDO of May 6, 2020, at 5.

On August 28, 2020, appellant moved to dismiss his charges, alleging a statutory speedy trial violation. This motion acknowledged that February 25 through April 21, 2020, "does not count toward calculation of statutory speedy trial." On the same day, appellant filed his "Motion to Continue Case, Under Protest," which "assert[ed] speedy trial on both constitutional and statutory bases."

On September 4, 2020, the trial court denied the motions. On appeal, appellant asserts that the periods from January 9 through February 25, 2020, and April 21 through September 4, 2020, are chargeable against the Commonwealth. Appellant's jury trial was ultimately held on May 17 and 18, 2021.⁴

Evidence at Trial ⁵

On the evening of September 19, 2018, E.W. was alone in the Danville, Virginia home she shared with her boyfriend and children. E.W. took a bath and smoked marijuana. While in the bathroom, she heard a couple of loud bangs, so she wrapped herself in a towel and began to run to the back door, believing her boyfriend needed to be let inside. As she entered the dining room, she saw "guns in [her] face." Two men, both holding guns, pushed E.W. down the hallway and into her bedroom. One of the men, later identified by E.W. as appellant, had a white t-shirt wrapped around his head to hide his features; however, E.W. could see that he had "really dark skin" and dreads.

The men asked E.W. if she had money in the house, and appellant held E.W. at gunpoint in the bedroom for more than twenty minutes while the other man searched through her closet and other parts of the house. Appellant took E.W.’s jewelry and gun from her dresser. Appellant also smoked part of a cigarette, then passed it to E.W. and told her to smoke it. Instead of smoking it, E.W. placed it on her bedroom floor.

About a minute later, the other man reentered the bedroom and appellant left the room. While appellant was out of the bedroom, the other man raped E.W., then walked her at gunpoint to the bathroom and told her to wash herself. Eventually, E.W. was able to slip out of the bathroom and exit the front door of the house. She then sought help from a neighbor. Multiple items were taken from E.W.’s home, including electronic devices, clothing, and her gun.

E.W. went to the hospital, where she met with detectives. At the hospital, she recalled that both men were continuously changing their voices while interacting with her, as though they were trying to disguise their voices. That night E.W. told the police that she did not know the men who broke in. She also told them that she wears glasses and that without her glasses she is "blind" and "literally ... can't see nothing." E.W. did not have her glasses on throughout the encounter at her home. She also told police that although she had only seen two men, it was possible that there was a third person in her home that evening.

In January 2019, E.W. received a phone call from an acquaintance who was incarcerated in Lynchburg. That person "told [E.W.] a personal thing that happened to [E.W.] that nobody should have known about." E.W. had not told her friends or family about the rape, nor was she identified by name in news stories about the incident. Based on this phone conversation, E.W. realized that she knew her attackers. She then reported to law enforcement that appellant and A.F. were the men who broke into her house.

In October 2019, approximately thirteen months after the incident, E.W. looked at a photo lineup and identified appellant as one of the men who had broken in. E.W. stated that appellant had previously come to her home about six times but had never been inside her bedroom before. She also stated that the voice of the man who gave her the cigarette was similar to the voice she had previously heard from appellant. She testified that she was "very sure" about her identification of appellant.

On the night of the crime, as part of the investigation into the incident, a cigarette butt was collected from E.W.’s bedroom floor, in the general location she had described placing the cigarette. That butt was tested for DNA evidence. It matched appellant's DNA.⁶

In November 2019, appellant spoke with law enforcement about the incident. He told them that he had never been to Danville, did not know anyone in Danville, and had never been to E.W.’s house. Appellant testified at trial; he denied ever having seen E.W. prior to the trial. He denied ever having been to Danville or to E.W.’s house. He stated that he had "no explanation" for why a cigarette butt with his DNA on it would have been found inside her house, other than that somebody had placed it there and was using him "as a scapegoat."

At the close of a two-day jury trial, appellant was convicted of robbery, use of a firearm in the commission of robbery, and armed burglary. A.F. was acquitted of all charges.

Analysis

I. The Declaration of a Judicial Emergency, and the Enforcement of this Declaration, Did Not Violate the Separation of Powers.

"Constitutional issues present questions of law reviewed de novo on appeal."

Ali v. Commonwealth , 75 Va. App. 16, 33, 872 S.E.2d 662 (2022). "To the extent such review involves underlying factual findings, those findings may not be disturbed unless ‘plainly wrong’ or ‘without evidence to support them.’ " Id. (quoting Wilkins v. Commonwealth , 292 Va. 2, 7, 786 S.E.2d 156 (2016) ).

A. The Separation of Powers Doctrine Ensures that No Branch of Government Assumes a Role Properly...