Starrs v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 10 January 2014
• Docket Number: Record No. 122028.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: William Gabriel STARRS v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia.

287 Va. 1

752 S.E.2d 812

William Gabriel STARRS

v.COMMONWEALTH of Virginia.

Record No. 122028.

Supreme Court of Virginia.

Jan. 10, 2014.

Cary S. Greenberg (Caroline E. Costle; Timothy R. Bradley; Edward S. Rosenthal; GreenbergCostle, on briefs), for appellant.

Alice T. Armstrong, Assistant Attorney General II (Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

PRESENT: All the Justices.

Opinion by Chief Justice CYNTHIA D. KINSER.

Upon accepting a guilty plea and entering it in the record, does a trial court nevertheless retain the inherent authority to withhold a finding of guilt and defer the disposition? That question is the issue in this appeal. We answer the question in the affirmative because until the court enters an order adjudicating guilt, it has not exercised its judicial power to render judgment. Therefore, we will reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.

I. RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

In March 2011, William Gabriel Starrs was indicted in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County on two counts of felony possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, in violation of Code § 18.2–248. Three months later, Starrs entered pleas of guilty to both felonies pursuant to similar plea agreements. See Rule 3A:8. In those agreements, Starrs admitted that he committed the offenses charged and agreed that “the only issue to be decided by the [c]ourt [was] punishment.” The plea agreements also included the following proviso: “I reserve the right to seek a disposition based upon the ... decision in Hernandez [ v. Commonwealth, 281 Va. 222, 707 S.E.2d 273 (2011) ].”

After Starrs entered his guilty pleas, the circuit court entered an order, stating in relevant part:

The [c]ourt accepted the pleas of guilty and made them a part of the record after ... determining that the pleas were made voluntarily and with full understanding of the nature of the charges and the consequences of the pleas.

In consideration of [Starrs'] pleas of guilty and the evidence proffered, the [c]ourt finds that there is overwhelming and sufficient evidence for a finding of guilt. At the request of [Starrs], the [c]ourt withheld a finding of guilt pending sentencing in order to permit [Starrs] to make an argument related to the ... decision in ... Hernandez. By withholding a finding of guilt, it is not the [c]ourt's intention to express a view as to what decision the [c]ourt will ultimately make in this matter.

In subsequent memoranda, Starrs asked the circuit court to withhold a finding of guilt and continue the case for a period of time, release him under certain terms and conditions, and at the end of that period to “consider dismissal of the case in lieu of a conviction.” At the sentencing hearing, Starrs made the same request and, citing Hernandez, argued that the circuit court had the inherent authority to continue the case and consider dismissal of the charges. In response to questions from the circuit court, Starrs agreed that his “entire purpose” in asking for this type of disposition was “in the hope that [the circuit court] would ultimately dismiss the charges.”

The circuit court denied Starrs' request. Citing Taylor v. Commonwealth, 58 Va.App. 435, 710 S.E.2d 518 (2011), the court concluded that in the absence of a motion by the Commonwealth, it did not have the authority to dismiss the criminal charges then or later because “the defendant's plea[s] establishe[d] the defendant's guilt.” The court noted that it also had the authority to reject the defendant's pleas, but that such rejection would not result in a dismissal of the charges. The court stated:

Since ultimate dismissal is [Starrs'] goal in seeking a deferral of entry of a judgment and since I find I do not have the authority to do that, the request for deferral is denied.

I want to be absolutely clear that I am not exercising my discretion here; I find I do not have discretion. I have discretion to continue this; I can absolutely continue this for two years.

But at the end of two years, my only option would be to sentence [Starrs] on the charges in which he entered pleas of guilty. And, as [Starrs] has confirmed, the whole purpose in seeking the deferral is ultimately to obtain a dismissal.

....

Given that [Starrs] has admitted his guilt and has entered a guilty plea and the Commonwealth has proffered sufficient evidence in support of his plea, I could not find that the evidence was lacking and warranted dismissal. And if dismissal is not an option, there's no bona fide reason to defer disposition.

The circuit court subsequently entered an order finding Starrs guilty and sentencing him to five years of imprisonment on each charge, to run concurrently, with all time suspended for five years.

Starrs appealed the circuit court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Virginia, arguing that the circuit court erred in finding it lacked the authority “to withhold a finding of guilt and defer adjudication ... for possible future dismissal of the charges.” Starrs v. Commonwealth, 61 Va.App. 39, 43, 733 S.E.2d 142, 144 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). Recognizing that a trial court has the inherent authority under Hernandez to continue a case for future disposition, the Court of Appeals nevertheless rejected Starrs' argument that a trial court can dismiss criminal charges after accepting a defendant's guilty plea but before entry of a written order adjudicating guilt. Id. at 45, 733 S.E.2d at 145. Citing Kibert v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 660, 222 S.E.2d 790 (1976), and Hobson v. Youell, 177 Va. 906, 15 S.E.2d 76 (1941), the Court of Appeals held that Starrs' guilty pleas, accepted by the circuit court and entered in the record, constituted convictions for the offenses with which he was charged. Starrs, 61 Va.App. at 46, 733 S.E.2d at 145–46. The Court of Appeals further held that “[w]hen the [circuit] court accepted [Starrs'] knowing and voluntary guilty pleas and entered his guilty pleas on the record, it thereafter had no discretion to dismiss the charges against him.” Id. at 46, 733 S.E.2d at 146.

We granted Starrs this appeal.

II. ANALYSIS

We have previously held that “during the interval between the conclusion of the evidence and the entry of a written order adjudicating [a] defendant guilty, [a trial court has] the inherent power, in the exercise of its discretion, to take the matter under advisement and to continue the case for future disposition.” Hernandez, 281 Va. at 226, 707 S.E.2d at 275. The issue now before us is whether the circuit court, after accepting Starrs' guilty pleas and entering them in the record through a written order, likewise retained the inherent authority to withhold a finding of guilt and defer the disposition. That issue requires us to determine whether the circuit court rendered a judgment adjudicating Starrs guilty of the charged offenses. These are questions of law that we review de novo. Id. at 224, 707 S.E.2d at 274.

To answer these questions, we must revisit the judiciary's essential function and inherent power. Under the Constitution of Virginia, judicial power is “vested in a Supreme Court and in such other courts of original or appellate jurisdiction subordinate to the Supreme Court as the General Assembly may from time to time establish.” Va. Const. art. VI, § 1.

“[T]he essential function of the judiciary [is] the act of rendering judgment in matters properly before it.” Moreau v. Fuller, 276 Va. 127, 136, 661 S.E.2d 841, 846 (2008). “ ‘The rendition of a judgment is the judicial act of the court.’ ” In re Commonwealth's Attorney, 265 Va. 313, 319, 576 S.E.2d 458, 462 (2003) (quoting Rollins v. Bazile, 205 Va. 613, 617, 139 S.E.2d 114, 117 (1964)). “A judgment is the determination by a court of the rights of the parties, as those rights presently exist, upon matters submitted to it in an action or proceeding.” Rollins, 205 Va. at 617, 139 S.E.2d at 117 (internal quotation marks omitted).

We have explained that

[t]he judiciary's inherent power derives from its existence as an institution entrusted with the function of rendering judgment. To deny this function is to deny the very institution itself. The court's inherent power has been recognized to extend to matters “incident to the exercise of the judicial power which is vested” in it.

Moreau, 276 Va. at 136, 661 S.E.2d at 846 (quoting Button v. Day, 204 Va. 547, 553, 132 S.E.2d 292, 296 (1963)).

Asserting that Moreau, Hernandez, and In re Commonwealth's Attorney are dispositive, Starrs argues that the circuit court had the inherent authority to defer the disposition of his case and consider a dismissal of the charges. Starrs contends that the circuit court's power to render judgment, including a judgment dismissing the charges, remained until the court entered a written order adjudicating guilt. Thus, according to Starrs, neither a finding that evidence is sufficient to support a conviction nor the acceptance of a guilty plea strips a trial court of its inherent authority to decide “whether, when and how to render a judgment.”

In Moreau, a juvenile and domestic relations district court judge (the district judge) found evidence sufficient to convict the defendant but withheld a judgment of conviction, taking the matter under advisement for disposition at a later date. 276 Va. at 131, 661 S.E.2d at 843. A circuit court issued a writ of mandamus requested by the Commonwealth's Attorney, holding that “a determination as to the guilt or innocence of the accused [was] a ministerial and not a discretionary judicial function” once the district judge found sufficient evidence to convict. Id. at 132–33, 661 S.E.2d at 844.

On appeal, this Court reversed the circuit court's judgment and vacated the writ of mandamus. Id. at 138, 661 S.E.2d at 847. We concluded that after hearing evidence in the underlying criminal case, “it was within the inherent authority of the [district] court to ‘take the matter under advisement’ or ‘continue ...