Brooks v. Commonwealth
61 Va. App. 576
| Va. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Brooks was convicted of possession of cocaine under Code § 18.2-250.
- He petitioned this Court for appeal and the Court granted review on an additional question about Rule 5A:12 requirements.
- Rule 5A:12(c)(1) requires an exact page reference to the record where an error was preserved with the assignment of error.
- Brooks’s replacement petition cited broad ranges (pages 3-39 and 39-67), i.e., near-entire transcripts, not exact references.
- The en banc court held the broad references were not exact and that dismissal is an available remedy for repeated noncompliance, though not mandatory in every case.
- The appeal is ultimately dismissed for Brooks’s repeated failures to cure the defect and for not providing an exact reference in his amended petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brooks’s citations met the exact reference requirement | Brooks asserts the cited ranges cover the preserved errors. | Commonwealth argues the citations are not exact and broaden the entire record. | Not satisfied; references were too broad. |
| Whether dismissal was mandatory or discretionary | Brooks argues nonmandated relief should apply. | Commonwealth argues the Rule allows dismissal for noncompliance, especially with repeated failures. | Court may dismiss; here dismissal warranted due to repeated failures to cure. |
Key Cases Cited
- Redman v. Commonwealth, 25 Va.App. 215, 487 S.E.2d 269 (1997) (clarifies Rule 5A:18 and prompt objections and corrections)
- Gardner v. Commonwealth, 3 Va.App. 418, 350 S.E.2d 229 (1986) (highlights purpose of timely, specific objections in trial court)
- Brown v. Commonwealth, 8 Va.App. 126, 380 S.E.2d 8 (1989) (illustrates strict enforcement of preservation requirements)
- Davis v. Commonwealth, 282 Va. 339, 717 S.E.2d 796 (2011) (directs review of preservation and procedural standards)
- Whitt v. Commonwealth, 61 Va.App. 637, 739 S.E.2d 254 (2013) (discusses deficiencies in assignments of error and possible dismissals)
- Chatman v. Commonwealth, 61 Va.App. 618, 739 S.E.2d 245 (2013) (en banc discussion on Rule 5A:12(c)(1) deficiencies and discretionary remedies)
- Logan v. Commonwealth, 47 Va.App. 168, 622 S.E.2d 771 (2005) (en banc context for Rule 5A:12 jurisdiction and dismissal considerations)