Stephens v. Com.
Decision Date | 11 January 2002 |
Docket Number | Record No. 010852. |
Citation | 557 S.E.2d 227,263 Va. 58 |
Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Parties | Alphonso STEPHENS, v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. |
Albert L. Shaw, Chatham, for appellant.
Richard B. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General (Randolph A. Beales, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. Present All the Justices.
Opinion by Justice LEROY R. HASSELL, SR.
In this appeal, we consider whether a defendant was subjected to multiple punishments for the same offense in contravention of the Double Jeopardy Clauses in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article I, § 8 of the Constitution of Virginia.
Alphonso Stephens was tried by a jury in the County of Pittsylvania for two counts of shooting at an occupied vehicle in violation of Code § 18.2-154, and two counts of discharging a firearm while in a motor vehicle in violation of Code § 18.2-286.1. The jury found the defendant guilty of these crimes and fixed his punishment at a total of four years and 12 months imprisonment plus $2,000 in fines.
The defendant argued in the circuit court that his two convictions for shooting at an occupied vehicle and his two convictions for shooting from a vehicle constitute violations of his right not to be placed in jeopardy twice for the same offense. The circuit court disagreed with the defendant and entered a judgment confirming the verdicts. The defendant appealed that judgment to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the judgment. Stephens v. Commonwealth, 35 Va.App. 141, 543 S.E.2d 609 (2001). The defendant appeals the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
As required by established principles of appellate review, we will recite the evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party in the circuit court, and we will accord the Commonwealth the benefit of all inferences fairly deducible from that evidence. Remington v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 333, 338, 551 S.E.2d 620, 624 (2001). During the evening of May 7, 1999, Calvin Fitz was driving a Ford automobile on State Route 360 in Pittsylvania County. Bernard Fitz, III, Calvin Fitz' cousin, was in the front passenger seat of the car. Rontrell Petty was in the back seat of the car.
As Calvin Fitz was driving his car, he saw a car with blinking lights approach him from the rear. Calvin Fitz "slowed down a little bit," and the other car, driven by the defendant, "pulled beside" Fitz' car. The defendant, who had problems in the past with Bernard Fitz, "yelled" and "waved his hands." Bernard Fitz told Calvin Fitz to "hit the gas and keep on going." Calvin Fitz "hit the gas," and the defendant pursued Fitz' vehicle.
During the ensuing chase, Calvin Fitz drove his car at speeds between 85 and 90 m.p.h. The defendant turned his car lights off and began to shoot his pistol in the direction of Calvin Fitz' car. Christopher Jones, a passenger in the defendant's car, testified that he saw the defendant shoot the pistol approximately twice at Calvin Fitz' car.
Calvin Fitz testified that he saw the defendant shoot the pistol twice. He stated:
Code § 18.2-154 states in part:
Code § 18.2-286.1 states:
The defendant argues that his two separate convictions for shooting into an occupied vehicle and his two separate convictions for shooting from a vehicle violate his double jeopardy guarantees. The defendant asserts that his acts of firing a pistol repeatedly from his car constituted a single act and not a series of separate and distinct acts that would warrant separate indictments and separate punishments. The defendant "maintains that in the absence of a showing that the shots constituted separate and distinct acts performed at separate times," he cannot be convicted of two counts of violating Code § 18.2-154 and two counts of violating Code § 18.2-286.1. We disagree with the defendant's contentions.
The federal constitutional provision concerning double jeopardy embodies three guarantees: "[i]t protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal[;i]t protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction[; a]nd it protects against multiple punishments for the same offense." North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969) (footnotes omitted), overruled on other grounds by Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794, 109 S.Ct. 2201, 104 L.Ed.2d 865 (1989); accord Illinois v. Vitale, 447 U.S. 410, 415, 100 S.Ct. 2260, 65 L.Ed.2d 228 (1980); Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684, 688, 100 S.Ct. 1432, 63 L.Ed.2d 715 (1980); Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 165, 97 S.Ct. 2221, 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977); Blythe v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 722, 725, 284 S.E.2d 796, 797 (1981). Virginia's constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy affords a defendant the same guarantees as the federal Double Jeopardy Clause. Bennefield v. Commonwealth, 21 Va.App. 729, 739-40, 467 S.E.2d 306, 311 (1996); Peterson v. Commonwealth, 5 Va.App. 389, 394, 363 S.E.2d 440, 443 (1987); see, e.g., Walton v. City of Roanoke, 204 Va. 678, 682, 133 S.E.2d 315, 318 (1963).
The litigants agree that in this case the defendant's convictions occurred in a single trial and the only double jeopardy guarantee pertinent to this appeal is the guarantee against multiple punishments.1 See Blythe, 222 Va. at 725, 284 S.E.2d at 797-98. We have stated:
Blythe, 222 Va. at 725-26, 284 S.E.2d at 798. Additionally, the Supreme Court has stated that "[w]ith...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schwartz v. Com.
...against double jeopardy affords a defendant the same guarantees as the federal Double Jeopardy Clause." Stephens v. Commonwealth, 263 Va. 58, 62, 557 S.E.2d 227, 230 (2002). Thus, subjecting a defendant to cumulative punishments for the "same offense" violates both state and federal constit......
- Holloman v. Commonwealth
-
Rushing v. Commonwealth of Va..
...Bennefield v. Commonwealth, 21 Va.App. 729, 739–40, 467 S.E.2d 306, 311 (1996) (citations omitted); see also Stephens v. Commonwealth, 263 Va. 58, 62, 557 S.E.2d 227, 230 (2002) ( “Virginia's constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy affords a defendant the same guarantees as the fed......
-
West v. Director of the Department of Corrections
...53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977); North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969); Stephens v. Commonwealth, 263 Va. 58, 62, 557 S.E.2d 227, 229-30 (2002); Coleman v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 196, 199, 539 S.E.2d 732, 733 (2001); Payne v. Commonwealth, 257 Va. 216, 227, ......
-
10.6 Double Jeopardy and Collateral Estoppel
...and, by threatening her further, took her purse).[200] Stephens v. Commonwealth, 35 Va. App. 141, 543 S.E.2d 609 (2001), aff'd, 263 Va. 58, 557 S.E.2d 227 (2002); see also Walker v. Commonwealth, 272 Va. 511, 636 S.E.2d 476 (2006) (defendant could be convicted of abduction and acquitted of ......
-
22.2 Bill of Rights
...Slayton v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 101, 110, 582 S.E.2d 448 (2003).[5] Va. Const. art. I, § 8; see Stephens v. Commonwealth, 263 Va. 58, 62, 557 S.E.2d 227, 229 (2002).[6] Va. Const. art. I, § 8. Although the initial panel decision in Farmer v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 175, 390 S.E.2d 77......