Davianta Malik Grandy v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 0971151

Grandy (14 at the time) was convicted of robbery, attempted robbery, aggravated malicious wounding, and conspiracy for an armed robbery in which a delivery driver was threatened, assaulted, and shot.
At sentencing, several juvenile-services counselors and a probation officer testified Grandy had matured in nearly two years of pretrial detention and was respectful of authority.
Defense argued Grandy’s courtroom demeanor (staring at the judge) reflected respect and maturation; the judge interrupted to comment that Grandy continuously stared at her and that the behavior made her "uncomfortable."
Defense moved for the judge’s recusal and for a mistrial, arguing the judge’s comments showed bias that could have affected rulings and sentencing; the Commonwealth responded that demeanor is properly considered at sentencing.
The judge denied the recusal and mistrial motions, explained she was not intimidated and had not formed a negative determination about respectfulness, and proceeded to impose a blended sentence (commitment to juvenile until 21, then DOC) below the sentencing-guidelines midpoint.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed, holding the judge did not abuse her discretion in refusing to recuse or declare a mistrial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial judge should have recused herself based on comments about defendant's courtroom demeanor	Grandy argued the judge's remarks that his staring made her "uncomfortable" evidenced bias and required recusal	Commonwealth argued the judge's remarks were proper observations of demeanor at sentencing and did not show bias	Denied: no abuse of discretion; comments viewed in context were not evidence of impermissible bias
Whether a mistrial was required because of the judge's comments about demeanor	Grandy argued comments could have unfairly influenced rulings and sentencing, warranting mistrial	Commonwealth argued demeanor is relevant and remarks were not prejudicial	Denied: remarks did not warrant mistrial; judge properly considered demeanor at sentencing

Wilson v. Commonwealth, 272 Va. 19 (discretionary standard for judicial recusal; judge must exercise reasonable discretion)
Prieto v. Commonwealth, 283 Va. 149 (party seeking recusal bears burden; comments must be read in context)
Riner v. Commonwealth, 268 Va. 296 (appellate review states facts in light most favorable to Commonwealth)
Smith v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 357 (trial court may consider defendant's demeanor at sentencing for rehabilitative potential)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (judicial opinions formed during proceedings do not alone require recusal absent deep-seated favoritism or antagonism)