Holt v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 12 April 2016 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 1252–14–1. |
| Citation | 783 S.E.2d 546,66 Va.App. 199 |
| Parties | Angela Maye HOLT v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. |
| Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
J. Barry McCracken, Assistant Public Defender (Office of the Public Defender, on brief), for appellant.
Elizabeth C. Kiernan, Assistant Attorney General (Mark R. Herring, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Present: HUFF, C.J., and HUMPHREYS, PETTY, BEALES, ALSTON, McCULLOUGH,* CHAFIN, DECKER, O'BRIEN, RUSSELL and ATLEE, JJ.
UPON A REHEARING EN BANC
CHAFIN
, Judge.
At the conclusion of a jury trial, Angela Maye Holt was convicted of obtaining money by false pretenses in violation of Code § 18.2–178
and embezzlement in violation of Code § 18.2–111. She appealed both convictions. On appeal, Holt argued that the evidence failed to establish that she obtained money by false pretenses because it did not prove: 1) that she intended to defraud the victim, or 2) that she made a false representation to him of any past or existing fact. While Holt acknowledged that she failed to make any argument at trial concerning the lack of proof of any false representation, she requested this Court to review the issue under the ends of justice exception to Rule 5A:18. Additionally, Holt argued that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction of embezzlement because it failed to prove that she was entrusted with the property at issue.
A panel of this Court unanimously reversed Holt's embezzlement conviction and dismissed the indictment charging her with that offense. Holt v. Commonwealth, No. 1252–14–1, 2015 WL 4622674, 2015
Va.App. LEXIS 238 (Va.Ct.App. Aug. 4, 2015). The panel was divided, however, on whether the ends of justice exception to Rule 5A:18 should have applied to her argument concerning the Commonwealth's failure to prove any false representation. Id. The panel majority held that the exception did not apply under the facts and circumstances of the case and affirmed her obtaining money by false pretenses conviction. Id. The dissenting judge would have applied the ends of justice exception and reversed Holt's conviction. Id.
Holt petitioned this Court for a rehearing en banc regarding her false pretenses conviction, only requesting a review of the applicability of the ends of justice exception to her case and the sufficiency of the evidence establishing that she made a false representation of a past or existing fact. The Commonwealth did not file a petition requesting a rehearing en banc concerning Holt's embezzlement conviction. We granted Holt's petition for rehearing regarding the issues she presented therein, stayed the mandate of the panel decision, and reinstated the appeal on the docket of this Court. Upon rehearing the relevant issues en banc, we hold that the ends of justice exception does not apply to Holt's case and affirm her conviction for obtaining money by false pretenses in violation of Code § 18.2–178
.
"In accordance with established principles of appellate review, we state the facts in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party in the trial court[, and] accord the Commonwealth the benefit of all inferences fairly deducible from the evidence." Riner v. Commonwealth, 268 Va. 296, 303, 601 S.E.2d 555, 558 (2004)
. So viewed, the evidence relevant to the issues addressed on rehearing en banc is as follows.
Holt and Anthony Banks, the victim in the present case, began dating in 2012. When the relationship began, Banks was only seventeen years old. Holt was twenty-nine years old at that time. In the spring of 2013, Banks agreed to purchase Holt's Chevrolet Suburban to help her make child support payments. Banks began making periodic payments to Holt for the purchase of the vehicle in March 2013. He made a payment to Holt each time he received a paycheck. Often, Banks would give his entire paycheck to Holt to cover the couple's living expenses as well as his vehicle payment.
Over the course of approximately five months, Banks paid Holt $900 for the Suburban, and Holt signed the title of the vehicle over to him on July 29, 2013. With Holt's permission, Banks chose not to register the transaction with the Department of Motor Vehicles ("DMV") because it was cheaper for him to keep the vehicle on Holt's automobile insurance policy rather than transfer it to one of his own. Although both parties occasionally drove the Suburban before July 29, 2013, Banks testified that he had physical possession of the vehicle after that date.
On July 16, 2013, Aaron Smalley, Holt's former boyfriend and the father of her children, was released from incarceration, and he and Holt quickly resumed their romantic relationship. When Smalley came to Holt's mother's house to pick up his children on August 2, 2013, Smalley and Banks had an argument that eventually developed into a physical altercation. When Banks called the police, Smalley got into the Suburban and drove away.
Following the altercation, Banks decided to record his title to the Suburban with the DMV in order to regain possession of the vehicle. When he arrived at the DMV three days later, he learned that Holt had obtained a replacement title to the vehicle on August 3, 2013, the day following the altercation, by claiming that the original title to the vehicle had been lost or stolen. Holt's replacement title rendered Banks's original title invalid, and neither the Suburban nor the $900 that Banks paid to Holt were ever returned to him. Holt married Smalley approximately four months later in December 2013.
At trial, neither Banks nor Holt testified about any specific statements that Holt made to induce Banks to purchase the vehicle. Banks explained that he needed a vehicle to drive to work and that he agreed to buy Holt's Suburban to help her make payments on her child support obligations. Holt denied that she ever sold the vehicle to Banks, denied that he paid her money for the vehicle, and claimed that she signed the title so that a third party could purchase the vehicle from her.
In closing argument, the Commonwealth acknowledged that it had to prove that Holt made a false representation of a past or existing fact that induced Banks to purchase the Suburban in order to prove that Holt obtained money by false pretenses. The Commonwealth then argued that Holt had falsely represented "that she would give over the car to Mr. Banks at the end of the transaction."1 Holt did not argue that such a representation referenced a future event rather than a past or existing fact,2 and the jury convicted Holt of obtaining money by false pretenses in violation of Code § 18.2–178
.
On rehearing en banc, we must determine whether the ends of justice exception to Rule 5A:18
allows us to address the merits of Holt's sufficiency argument under the facts and circumstances of this case. As a preliminary matter, however, we first address certain procedural issues related to en banc review by this Court.
In Ferguson v. Commonwealth, 51 Va.App. 427, 433, 658 S.E.2d 692, 695 (2008)
(quoting Glenn v. Commonwealth, 49 Va.App. 413, 423 n. 3, 642 S.E.2d 282, 287 n. 3 (2007) (en banc )), this Court held that the " ‘grant of en banc review vacates the prior panel opinion in toto ... [,]’ ", and voids "the decision of the panel as to the issues before this Court en banc. " Furthermore, this Court explained that "we do not address en banc the issues raised in [an] appellant's panel opening brief [that are] not subject to [his or her] petition for rehearing en banc, " and concluded that when issues are addressed by a panel opinion but are not included in an appellant's petition for rehearing en banc, "we reinstate the panel opinion on the issues not before us." Id.
Portions of Ferguson are inconsistent with Rule 5A:35
, the rule setting forth the procedure for en banc review.3 Subsection (b) of that rule states:
When all or part of a petition for rehearing en banc is granted, the clerk of this Court shall notify all counsel promptly. The mandate entered is stayed as to all issues decided by the panel pending the decision of the Court en banc. The appeal is reinstated on the docket of the Court for oral argument only as to issues granted.
(emphasis added). Subpart (1) of the same subsection, entitled "Issues Considered Upon Rehearing En Banc, " states:
Only issues raised in the petition for rehearing en banc and granted for rehearing or included in the grant by the Court on its own motion are available for briefing, argument, and review by the en banc Court. The Court may grant a petition in whole or in part. Any issue decided by a panel of this Court not subject to a petition for rehearing en banc remains undisturbed by an en banc decision.
.
While Ferguson and Rule 5A:35
are consistent concerning the scope of the issues considered by this Court on en banc review, they differ concerning the effect of granting an appellant's petition for rehearing en banc. Ferguson expressly held that a panel decision is vacated by the grant of en banc review, whereas Rule 5A:35 states that the mandate of the panel is stayed by such a grant.
To clarify this inconsistency, we hold that the grant of en banc review stays a panel decision pending review of those issues for which rehearing en banc has been granted but does not vacate it, and we overrule Ferguson to the extent it holds otherwise.4 Applying this holding and Rule 5A:35
to the case at hand, we address only the issues raised in Holt's petition for rehearing en banc and reinstate the panel's decisions regarding the issues not before this Court for en banc review (i.e., the decision concerning Holt's intent to defraud Banks set forth in Part II(A)(1) of the panel opinion and the reversal of her embezzlement conviction set forth in Part II(B) of the panel opinion).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fletcher v. Commonwealth
...of justice." (Emphasis added)."The ends of justice exception is narrow and is to be used sparingly[.]" Holt v. Commonwealth, 66 Va. App. 199, 209, 783 S.E.2d 546 (2016) (en banc ) (quoting Redman v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 215, 220-21, 487 S.E.2d 269 (1997) ). In deciding whether the exce......
-
Conley v. Commonwealth
...sparingly,’ and applies only in the extraordinary situation where a miscarriage of justice has occurred." Holt v. Commonwealth , 66 Va. App. 199, 209, 783 S.E.2d 546 (2016) (en banc ) (quoting Redman v. Commonwealth , 25 Va. App. 215, 220-21, 487 S.E.2d 269 (1997) ). Whether to apply the en......
-
State v. Crawford
...error review) ; State v. Savo , 139 Vt. 644, 433 A.2d 292, 293 (1981) (applying plain error review) ; Holt v. Commonwealth , 66 Va.App. 199, 783 S.E.2d 546, 551 (2016) (en banc) (stating unpreserved challenge reviewed for manifest injustice).4 See, e.g. , Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b) (defining "p......
-
King William Cnty. v. Jones
...in [the] petition for rehearing en banc and reinstate the panel's decisions regarding the [other] issues.” Holt v. Commonwealth , 66 Va.App. 199, 208, 783 S.E.2d 546, 550 (2016) (en banc ); see also Rule 5A:35. Thus, for determination of the issue before us, it is established that claimant ......