Walker v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 04 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | 1297-21-1 |
| Parties | JAMAL BRION WALKER v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA |
| Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS Gary A. Mills Judge
(Charles E. Haden, on brief), for appellant.
(Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General; Leanna C. Minix, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Judges Athey, Ortiz and Lorish
Following his guilty pleas, the trial court convicted Jamal Brion Walker of malicious wounding and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony; it sentenced him to a total of twenty-three years' incarceration with fifteen years suspended. On appeal, Walker challenges the voluntariness of his guilty pleas and argues that the sentence the trial court imposed represents an abuse of its sentencing discretion. After examining the briefs and record in this case, the panel unanimously holds that oral argument is unnecessary because "the appeal is wholly without merit." Code § 17.1-403(ii)(a); Rule 5A:27(a).
On appeal, we recite the facts "in the 'light most favorable' to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party in the trial court." Hammer v. Commonwealth, 74 Va.App. 225, 231 (2022) (quoting Commonwealth v Cady, 300 Va. 325, 329 (2021)). Doing so requires that we "discard the evidence of the accused in conflict with that of the Commonwealth, and regard as true all the credible evidence favorable to the Commonwealth and all fair inferences to be drawn therefrom." Cady, 300 Va. at 329 (quoting Commonwealth v. Perkins, 295 Va. 323, 324 (2018)).
Before accepting Walker's pleas, the trial court conducted a colloquy with him to ensure they were entered freely and voluntarily. During the colloquy, Walker stated that he did not have "any mental condition that would impair [his] ability to understand the[] proceedings" and had not consumed any alcohol, drugs, or prescription medication in the preceding twelve hours. Walker confirmed that he had discussed the charges with his attorney and "fully understood" their "elements." He had decided for himself to plead guilty because he was "in fact guilty" of the charges. Walker understood that by pleading guilty he was waiving his rights to a trial by jury, to confront the witnesses against him, to present evidence in his defense, and to appeal certain decisions of the court. Walker confirmed that he was pleading guilty "freely and voluntarily" and nobody had "forced" him to enter his pleas. Walker understood that the use of a firearm charge carried a three-year mandatory minimum term of incarceration and that the court could sentence him to a maximum of twenty years' incarceration on the malicious wounding charge. He also understood that the trial court was not bound by the discretionary sentencing guidelines. Walker declined the opportunity to ask the trial court any questions.
The Commonwealth proffered that on January 19, 2020, Newport News police officers drove to a restaurant where they encountered two males, Leroy and Mario Hicks, who had sustained "multiple gunshot wounds." After viewing surveillance video, the officers identified Walker as the shooter and arrested him. Walker told the officers that he had been inside the restaurant when a "fight broke out" and Leroy choked him. Walker admitted that he left the restaurant, waited in the parking lot, and shot at Leroy and Mario as they departed. Leroy suffered gunshot wounds to his arm, leg, and hip; Mario suffered gunshot wounds to his foot and knee. Police found nine cartridge casings scattered in the parking lot and three bullet fragments near the restaurant's entrance.
The trial court accepted Walker's pleas, finding they were entered freely and voluntarily with an understanding of their nature and consequences. Based on the pleas and proffered evidence, the court convicted Walker of malicious wounding and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony and continued the matter for sentencing.[1]
At the sentencing hearing, Walker introduced into evidence a letter from his mother, who characterized him as a "respectful" and "caring individual who loves his family" and "adores his two children." She wrote that Walker had a "great" work ethic and often helped neighbors. She asserted that Walker had a job available when he was released from incarceration and was "a decent person who just made some poor decisions."
Walker argued that the trial court should sentence him to three years' incarceration. Stressing his lack of criminal history and family support, Walker maintained that he did not need a "stiff sentence" to be rehabilitated. He acknowledged that his offenses were serious but also characterized them as a "hiccup in the road for him." He asked the trial court "to take a chance" on him and show mercy.
The Commonwealth argued that the court should impose a sentence above the high end of the discretionary sentencing guidelines.[2] The Commonwealth contended that Walker's "calculated" decision to wait in the parking lot and shoot at a restaurant that was filled with people demonstrated an "utter disregard for human life." The Commonwealth emphasized that Walker shot "multiple times" and inflicted numerous gunshot wounds on both his victims.
In allocution, Walker apologized to the victims and their families. He claimed that he was young, did not intend to cause harm, and had "grown" and "learned" from his mistakes. He lamented losing "family time" while incarcerated and missing important milestones in his children's lives. He recounted that his sibling had died while he was incarcerated and his cousin was struggling with lupus. Accordingly, he asked the court "for another chance at life."
The trial court found that Walker's actions were "extremely dangerous" to both his victims and the other restaurant patrons who "had to be terrified." The court found that the discretionary guidelines were "too low" and "shock[ed] the conscience." Accordingly, the court imposed three years' incarceration on the use of a firearm conviction and twenty years' incarceration with fifteen suspended on the malicious wounding conviction. Walker asked the trial court to order that his sentences be served concurrently; the court denied his request. Walker appeals.
Walker argues that the trial court erred by accepting his guilty pleas because he did not enter them freely and voluntarily. He argues that "the record failed to establish" that he "was given notice of the elements of the offense[s]" or "what the Commonwealth must prove before he could be" convicted. He also argues that he was not "made aware of the various collateral consequences of his guilty pleas," including the loss of his rights to vote and possess a firearm and disqualification of certain public benefits and occupational licenses. Relying on Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), Walker suggests that the failure to advise him of those collateral consequences rendered his pleas invalid. Finally, Walker argues that his pleas were not voluntary because the trial court "failed to establish for the record that [he] possessed the requisite mental competency to knowingly enter his pleas . . . or otherwise exclude the possibility that [he] was suffering from diminished capacity." Walker acknowledges that he did not move to withdraw his guilty pleas or otherwise preserve his argument for appellate review but asks that we address it under the "good cause" and "ends of justice" exceptions to Rule 5A:18.[3]
'"Good cause' relates to the reason why an objection was not stated at the time of the ruling." Pope v. Commonwealth, 60 Va.App. 486, 508 (2012) (quoting Campbell v. Commonwealth, 14 Va.App. 988, 996 (1992) (en banc)). "The Court may only invoke the 'good cause' exception where an appellant did not have the opportunity to object to a ruling in the trial court; however, when an appellant 'had the opportunity to object but elected not to do so,' the exception does not apply." Perry v. Commonwealth, 58 Va.App. 655, 667 (2011) (emphasis added) (quoting Luck v. Commonwealth, 32 Va.App. 827, 834 (2000)).
The trial court accepted Walker's guilty pleas on September 1, 2021, and entered final judgment on December 6, 2021. Thus, Walker had nearly four months to move to withdraw his guilty pleas but failed to do so. Code § 19.2 296 (providing that a trial court, "to correct manifest injustice, . . . within twenty-one days after entry of a final order may set aside the judgment of conviction and permit the defendant to withdraw his plea"). Nothing in the record suggests that anything prevented Walker from filing such a motion. Accordingly, the good cause exception does not apply because there was ample opportunity for Walker to alert the trial court of the relief he sought. Moreover, there were valid strategic reasons for not doing so considering the charges the Commonwealth moved to nolle prosequi because of Walker's pleas. Combined, those charges presented a potential sentencing exposure of an additional thirty-five years. Code §§ 18.2-10, 18.2-51, 18.2-53.1, 18.2-279.
"The 'ends of justice' exception to Rule 5A:18 is 'narrow and is to be used sparingly.'" Melick v. Commonwealth, 69 Va.App. 122, 146 (2018) (quoting Pearce v. Commonwealth, 53 Va.App. 113, 123 (2008)). Whether to apply the ends of justice exception involves two questions: "(1) whether there is error as contended by the appellant; and (2) whether the failure to apply the ends of justice provision would result in a grave injustice." Commonwealth v. Bass, 292 Va. 19 27 (2016) (quoting Gheorghiu v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 678, 689 (2010)). "The burden of establishing a manifest injustice is a heavy one, and it rests with the appellant." Holt v. Commonwealth, 66 Va.App. 199,...
To continue reading
Request your trial