Com. v. Baker, Record No. 982102.
| Court | Supreme Court of Virginia |
| Citation | 258 Va. 1,516 S.E.2d 219 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 982102. |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Virginia v. Jeramie Michael BAKER. |
| Decision Date | 11 June 1999 |
516 S.E.2d 219
258 Va. 1
v.
Jeramie Michael BAKER.
Record No. 982102.
Supreme Court of Virginia.
June 11, 1999.
Michael T. Judge, Assistant Attorney General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney. General, on briefs), for appellant.
Clifford Y. Rose (Rose & Wall, on brief), Fredericksburg, for appellee.
Present: All the Justices.
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal, the Court reviews a judgment of the Court of Appeals declaring the
Central to the decision below was the interpretation of Code § 16.1-263(A), which provides, in part, that after a juvenile petition is filed, the court shall direct summonses "to the parents" of the juvenile. Here, even though the juvenile's mother received notice, the juvenile's biological father was not notified, there was no attempt to give him notice, and the circuit court made no certification on the record that the identity of the father was not reasonably ascertainable.
Parenthetically, we note the statute has been amended effective July 1, 1999 to provide for notice to "at least one parent." Acts 1999, ch. 952.
For the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, we will affirm the court's judgment.
Furthermore, we decline the Attorney General's request that we apply this judgment prospectively only; retrospective application is mandated by Gogley v. Peyton, 208 Va. 679, 160 S.E.2d 746 (1968).
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Commonwealth, Record No. 992525
...before the original indictments were obtained. He also argues that the original indictments were void under Commonwealth v. Baker, 258 Va. 1, 516 S.E.2d 219 (1999)(per curiam), because the Commonwealth had failed to notify Johnson's father of the transfer hearing in the juvenile court. We d......
-
Porter v. Com., Record No. 071928.
...pertinent comparison is between the defendant Baker in the seminal parental notification decision in Commonwealth 661 S.E.2d 430 v. Baker, 258 Va. 1, 516 S.E.2d 219 (1999) (per curiam), affirming Baker v. Commonwealth, 28 Va.App. 306, 504 S.E.2d 394 (1998), who made timely objection through......
-
Smith v. Commonwealth Of Va., Record No. 0422-09-1.
...period is void. Crowley, 227 Va. at 261-62, 316 S.E.2d at 443. 20. A Baker claim is one that arises from Commonwealth v. Baker, 258 Va. 1, 516 S.E.2d 219 (1999) (per curiam), aff'g Baker v. Commonwealth, 28 Va.App. 306, 504 S.E.2d 394 (1998) (holding that the failure to notify a juvenile's ......
-
Nelson v. WARDEN OF KEEN MTN. CORRECTIONAL, Record No. 002301.
...Chief Justice HARRY L. CARRICO This case involves a "Baker claim," i.e., one arising from this Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Baker, 258 Va. 1, 516 S.E.2d 219 (1999) (per curiam), aff'g Baker v. Commonwealth, 28 Va.App. 306, 504 S.E.2d 394 (1998) (failure to notify juvenile's parents o......