Commonwealth of Virginia v. James Daniel Murphy
0596213
| Va. Ct. App. | Oct 26, 2021Background:
- James D. Murphy was declared a habitual offender in 1996 and had his license revoked (third DWI) in 2002.
- On July 8, 2020 Murphy was indicted on four alternative counts: two under Va. Code § 46.2-357 (driving as a declared habitual offender; endangering) and two under Va. Code § 46.2-391 (driving while revoked endangering; DWI while revoked).
- Murphy filed a pretrial double-jeopardy plea under Code § 19.2-266.2 arguing he could not be punished under both § 46.2-357 and § 46.2-391; the circuit court granted the motion and dismissed the § 46.2-391 counts.
- Commonwealth appealed under Code § 19.2-398(A)(1); this Court also asked the parties to brief the effect of the repeal of § 46.2-357 effective July 1, 2021.
- The Court held the circuit court’s pretrial dismissal was premature but, because the statutory scheme required a pretrial ruling for interlocutory appeal, addressed the merits: it applied Blockburger, found the offenses distinct, and rejected statutory-construction and legislative-history arguments that multiple punishments were prohibited.
- The Court reversed the dismissal, concluding neither the Double Jeopardy Clause nor § 46.2-357’s language/history bars punishment under both statutes; repeal does not affect prosecution of offenses committed before repeal (Code § 1-239).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trying/punishing Murphy under both § 46.2-357 and § 46.2-391 for the same conduct violates the Double Jeopardy Clause (multiple punishments) | Murphy: GA intended to forbid punishment under both statutes for the same conduct; constitutional protection bars multiple punishments | Commonwealth: Blockburger controls; each statute requires an element the other does not, so multiple punishments are permitted | Offenses are not the same under Blockburger; Double Jeopardy (multiple punishment) does not bar punishment under both statutes |
| Whether § 46.2-357’s text and legislative history bar multiple punishments as a matter of statutory intent | Murphy: subsection (C) and the 1999 amendments show intent to make the statutes mutually exclusive and avoid double punishment | Commonwealth: statute text doesn’t prohibit multiple punishments; legislature knows how to do so explicitly and did not here; § 46.2-391’s post‑1999 limitation shows different scope | Court: plain language and history do not show a clear legislative intent to forbid multiple punishments; no statutory bar |
| Effect of repeal of § 46.2-357 (effective July 1, 2021) on this prosecution | Murphy: repeal indicates legislative intent against multiple punishments | Commonwealth: Code § 1-239 preserves enforcement of prior law for offenses committed before repeal | Repeal does not affect prosecutions for offenses committed before repeal; § 46.2-357 prosecutions may proceed under § 1-239 |
Key Cases Cited
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (test whether each offense requires proof of a fact the other does not)
- United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (1993) (endorsing Blockburger as controlling test)
- Commonwealth v. Gregg, 295 Va. 293 (2018) (Blockburger and legislative-intent interaction on multiple punishments)
- Andrews v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 231 (2010) (in single-trial context double jeopardy bars multiple punishments only at sentencing)
- Williams v. Commonwealth, 57 Va. App. 750 (2011) (pretrial dismissal for multiple punishments is premature)
- Commonwealth v. Swann, 290 Va. 194 (2015) (judicial restraint; avoid deciding issues not necessary to present posture)
- Daily Press, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 447 (2013) (court not bound by parties’ legal concessions)
- Ruplenas v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 972 (1981) (repeal does not affect offenses committed under prior law; applied via Code § 1-239)