Bevel v. Com., 717 S.E.2d 789

Bevel was indicted in Loudoun County for violating Code § 18.2-366 by sexual relations with his daughter aged 13–18, based on acts from 1992–1994 and testified by the adult daughter describing abuse starting at age 6.
Bevel was convicted by a jury on April 10, 2008, and sentencing order imposed on October 27, 2008: 15 years’ imprisonment and $50,000 fine.
Bevel died on December 19, 2008, while his appeals were pending; counsel filed death notice and sought to withdraw, but no abatement request was made at that time.
The circuit court denied a motion to dismiss (abatement) in February 2009; Bevel’s counsel then moved to abate conviction ab initio in March 2009, which the Court of Appeals later remanded for a hearing on good cause to deny abatement.
The circuit court held a hearing in September 2009 and denied abating the conviction; the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial in a September 2010 unpublished opinion, while Bevel appealed to this Court.
The Supreme Court of Virginia concluded that abatement ab initio is not compelled by Virginia law and vacated the Court of Appeals’ good cause ruling; it dismissed the merits appeal as moot, vacating the abatement ruling but affirming dismissal of the appeal on the merits as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether abatement ab initio applies when the defendant dies during an appeal	Bevel's death triggers abatement ab initio of the conviction.	Abatement is warranted; the Commonwealth’s vindication and victims’ interests support abating the conviction.	Abatement ab initio not required; Virginia courts must decide policy, not by abatement; Court of Appeals erred in applying abatement.
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly applied the good cause framework to deny abatement	Good cause was not shown to deny abatement and the conviction should abate.	Good cause exists to deny abatement due to Commonwealth interests and the victim’s need for closure.	The issue of good cause is decided by the circuit court; the Virginia Supreme Court vacated the good cause ruling.
Whether Bevel's death renders the merits appeal moot	Merits review should proceed to preserve potential rights of estate or heirs.	With no alive appellant, the merits appeal is moot and should be dismissed.	The merits appeal was moot; dismissed, but not addressing broader substituted-party remedies.

Durham v. United States, 401 U.S. 481 (1971) (death pending direct review abates proceedings)
Dove v. United States, 423 U.S. 325 (1976) (overruled Durham; death pending review not necessarily abates entire proceeding)
United States v. Christopher, 273 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2001) (restitution abatement from abatement doctrine considerations)
United States v. Parsons, 367 F.3d 409 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc discussion on abatement andижvaried circuit approaches)
State v. Carlin, 249 P.3d 752 (Alaska 2011) (modern trend limiting or modifying abatement doctrine)