Amin v. County of Henrico, 749 S.E.2d 169

Amin was convicted under a Henrico County ordinance that purported to incorporate Va. Code § 18.2-308 (carrying a concealed weapon).
On initial appeal to the Court of Appeals, Amin assigned error only to the denial of his motion to suppress; the Court of Appeals denied the petition.
After rehearing was granted, Amin added an assignment asserting the conviction was void ab initio because Ordinance 22-2 did not in fact incorporate § 18.2-308.
The Court of Appeals recognized the ordinance adopted a different portion of Title 18.2 (Article 2) and concluded it could not reach the voidness claim because Amin had not raised that assignment in his original petition for appeal, citing Rule 5A:12.
This Court granted review to decide whether the Court of Appeals erred in refusing to consider the void-ab-initio claim under Rule 5A:12 and the ends-of-justice exception.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an appellate court may consider a claim that a conviction is void ab initio though the claim was not assigned in the petition to the Court of Appeals	Amin: A conviction void ab initio may be raised anytime; once the Court of Appeals acquired jurisdiction it must decide voidness despite Rule 5A:12	County/Henrico: Rule 5A:12 bars consideration of assignments not timely raised; Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to reach the new issue	The Supreme Court reversed: once the Court of Appeals had active appellate jurisdiction (timely petition and at least one proper assignment), it must consider an argument that the underlying order is void ab initio; Rule 5A:12 could not bar that review
Whether Amin’s petition for appeal to this Court was sufficient under Rule 5:17	Amin: Assignment alleges Court of Appeals erred by applying Rule 5A:12 and denying consideration of voidness	Dissent (Powell): Amin’s assignment does not challenge the Court of Appeals’ jurisdictional holding with required specificity and should be dismissed	Majority: Amin’s assignment to this Court was sufficient to present the issue; Court reached the merits of Rule 5A:12 question

Singh v. Mooney, 261 Va. 48 (2001) (an order void ab initio is a nullity and may be challenged at any time)
Kelley v. Stamos, 285 Va. 68 (2013) (void orders are without effect from their inception)
Davis v. Commonwealth, 282 Va. 339 (2011) (failure to include sufficient assignments can deprive appellate court of active jurisdiction)
Smith v. Commonwealth, 281 Va. 464 (2011) (timely filing and assignments requirement is jurisdictional)
LaCava v. Commonwealth, 283 Va. 465 (2012) (interpretation of court rules reviewed de novo)
Stevens v. Commonwealth, 283 Va. 296 (2012) (questions of law reviewed de novo)