Com. v. Harley

• Decision Date: 18 September 1998
• Docket Number: Record No. 972382.
• Citation: 504 S.E.2d 852,256 Va. 216
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Virginia v. Eugene Nakia HARLEY.

504 S.E.2d 852

256 Va. 216

COMMONWEALTH of Virginia v. Eugene Nakia HARLEY.

Record No. 972382.

Supreme Court of Virginia.

September 18, 1998.

Robert H. Anderson, III, Assistant Attorney General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief), for appellant.

No brief or argument for appellee.

Present: All the Justices.

CARRICO, Chief Justice.

In this case, the defendant, Eugene Nakia Harley, was convicted in the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach of one count of robbery, two counts of abduction, and three counts of the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. He was sentenced to serve a total of forty-three years in the penitentiary, with twenty-five years suspended.

Harley appealed his convictions to the Court of Appeals, raising the sole question whether the trial court erred in denying his motion for a transcript of a suppression hearing at state expense. In a published opinion, the Court of Appeals held that Harley was constitutionally entitled to a free transcript of the suppression hearing and, therefore, that the trial court erred in denying Harley's motion with respect thereto. Harley v. Commonwealth, 25 Va.App. 342, 350, 488 S.E.2d 647, 650 (1997). However, the Court of Appeals found that there were "no significant discrepancies between the witnesses' testimony at the suppression hearing and their testimony at trial" and that "[t]he evidence of [Harley's] guilt was overwhelming." Id. at 351, 488 S.E.2d at 651. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court's error in denying Harley a free transcript was harmless, and the court affirmed Harley's convictions. Id.

The Commonwealth filed a petition for appeal with this Court, seeking reversal of the judgment of the Court of Appeals insofar as it held that "the trial court was constitutionally obligated to provide Harley with a free copy of his suppression hearing transcript." Harley filed a brief in opposition in which he assigned cross-error to the Court of Appeals' ruling that the failure of the trial court to provide him a transcript at state expense was harmless error. In his brief in opposition, Harley also attacked the Commonwealth's standing to appeal the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

We awarded the Commonwealth an appeal and refused Harley's assignment of crosserror. He has not participated further in this proceeding.

On the question of standing, the Commonwealth asserts that it is a "party aggrieved" within the meaning of Code § 17-116.08, which provides in pertinent part that "any party aggrieved by a final decision of the Court of Appeals, including the Commonwealth, may petition the Supreme Court for an appeal." The Commonwealth says that "[t]he decision of the Court of Appeals, if not modified, inevitably would lead to the squandering of substantial amounts of public monies, inasmuch as defendants would be constitutionally entitled to transcripts of a host of pre-trial proceedings in order, supposedly, to honor their rights to a fair trial and due process."

The Commonwealth states on brief that the word "`aggrieved' is defined in the dictionary as `feeling distress or affliction' or `treated wrongly; offended.' American Heritage Dictionary 87 (2d ed.1991)." The Commonwealth also notes that in Virginia Beach Beautification Commission v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 231 Va. 415, 344 S.E.2d 899 (1986), we elaborated upon the meaning of the word "aggrieved" as follows:

The term "aggrieved" has a settled meaning in Virginia when it becomes necessary to determine who is a proper party to seek court relief from an adverse decision.... The word "aggrieved" in a statute contemplates a substantial grievance and means a denial of some personal or property right, legal or equitable, or imposition of a burden or obligation upon the petitioner different from that suffered by the public generally.

Id. at 419-20, 344 S.E.2d at 902-03 (emphasis added) (citation omitted). The Commonwealth then argues that because the decision of the Court of Appeals "will have the effect of imposing substantial new financial burdens on the Commonwealth to provide transcripts to indigent defendants who previously would not have been entitled to them, the Commonwealth has standing in this appeal."

Finally, the Commonwealth submits that "even though [it] ultimately prevailed in the Court of Appeals, it nevertheless is an `aggrieved' party ...