Williams v. Landon, 0142-85
| Decision Date | 19 November 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 0142-85,0142-85 |
| Citation | 336 S.E.2d 907,1 Va.App. 206 |
| Parties | Frank WILLIAMS v. Robert N. LANDON, Dir., Department of Corrections, State of Virginia. Record |
| Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
Frank Williams, pro se.
Russell C. Williams, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Gerald L. Baliles, Atty. Gen. of Virginia, on brief), for appellee.
Present: DUFF, HODGES, and MOON, JJ.
Appellant, Frank Williams, appeals pro se from a decision of the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond dismissing his habeas corpus petition pursuant to Code § 8.01-654(B)(2) on the ground that the allegation of facts upon which petitioner relied were known to him when he filed previous petitions. The Commonwealth claims the appeal must be dismissed because Williams failed to timely file the notice of appeal in accordance with our rules. We agree.
Williams' petition was dismissed in the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond on November 29, 1984. Williams filed his notice of appeal dated January 5, 1985, with the Circuit Court Clerk for the City of Richmond on January 8, 1985. A copy of that notice was not filed with the clerk of the Court of Appeals until February 4, 1985. Rule 5A:6(a) provides:
No appeal shall be allowed unless, within 30 days after entry of final judgment or other appealable order or decree, counsel files with the clerk of the trial court a notice of appeal, and at the same time mails or delivers a copy of such notice to all opposing counsel and the clerk of the Court of Appeals.
Rule 5A:3 provides: "The times prescribed for filing the notice of appeal (Rule 5A:6 ...) ... are mandatory."
Habeas corpus petitioners must follow the rules of court just as all other parties desiring an appeal. Meade v. Cox, 310 F.Supp. 233, 239 (W.D.Va.1970), aff'd, 438 F.2d 323 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 910, 92 S.Ct. 234, 30 L.Ed.2d 182 (1971). Therefore, for failure to timely file the notice of appeal, the appeal is dismissed.
Dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watkins v. Fairfax County
...her attempt to properly perfect her appeal, ineffective. Zion, 18 Va.App. at 583, 445 S.E.2d at 706; see also Williams v. Landon, 1 Va.App. 206, 207, 336 S.E.2d 907, 907 (1985).13 Because the guardian ad litem raised a proper and timely objection to Watkins's failure in this regard, we find......
- Philip Morris United States, Inc. v. Mease
-
D'Alessandro v. Com.
...with the clerk of the trial court within thirty days of final judgment. That rule is mandatory, not directory. Williams v. Landon, 1 Va.App. 206, 207, 336 S.E.2d 907, 908 (1985). Thus, the notice of appeal was due February 13, 1991, thirty days after entry of the final order on January 14, ......
-
Woody v. County Of Amherst
...the trial court within 30 days after entry of final judgment as required in Rule 5A:6(a) is jurisdictional" (citing Williams v. Landon, 1 Va. App. 206, 336 S.E.2d 907 (1985); cf Vaughn v. Vaughn, 215 Va. 328, 329, 210 S.E.2d 140, 142 (1974))).III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, we lack jurisdictio......
-
2.9 Mechanics of the Appeal
...Scott, Inc., 237 Va. 550, 379 S.E.2d 319 (1989); Turner v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 96, 341 S.E.2d 400 (1986); Williams v. Landon, 1 Va. App. 206, 336 S.E.2d 907 (1985); see also Wellmore Coal Corp. v. Harman Mining Corp., 264 Va. 279, 282-84, 568 S.E.2d 671, 673 (2002) (although foreign co......
-
2.4 Mechanics of the Appeal
...Scott, Inc., 237 Va. 550, 379 S.E.2d 319 (1989); Turner v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 96, 341 S.E.2d 400 (1986); Williams v. Landon, 1 Va. App. 206, 336 S.E.2d 907 (1985); see also Wellmore Coal Corp. v. Harman Mining Corp., 264 Va. 279, 282-84, 568 S.E.2d 671, 673 (2002) (although foreign co......