David Michael Abruzzese v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 0278172

David Abruzzese was convicted by a jury in Richmond of felony eluding (Va. Code § 46.2-817(B)) and endangering others while driving with a suspended license (Va. Code § 46.2-391(D)(2)) after a high-speed chase.
The Commonwealth tied Abruzzese to the chased vehicle primarily by antique license plates; DMV records showed the plates registered to him. Abruzzese testified he had surrendered those plates before the chase; the jury disbelieved him.
After sentencing (final order entered January 19, 2017), Abruzzese obtained new counsel and filed motions to set aside the verdicts (raising newly discovered/exculpatory evidence about surrendering the plates and sufficiency of the evidence). Those motions were filed within 21 days, but the circuit court did not enter a written order on them until February 15, 2017.
The circuit court announced its denial orally on February 9, 2017, but did not reduce that ruling to a written order within the 21-day Rule 1:1 period.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals held it was procedurally barred from reviewing Abruzzese’s post-trial-relief arguments because the trial court lost jurisdiction under Rule 1:1 when it failed to enter a written order within 21 days; additionally, Abruzzese waived his sufficiency challenge for lack of specificity at trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Abruzzese)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth)	Held
Whether the verdicts should be set aside based on newly discovered/exculpatory evidence or nondisclosure	The newly discovered evidence and undisclosed exculpatory material (plates surrendered to DMV) undermine guilt and require setting aside the verdicts	The trial court properly denied relief; no reversible error (and the Commonwealth implicitly relies on procedural grounds)	Denied as procedurally barred: trial court lost jurisdiction under Rule 1:1 because no written order entered within 21 days, so appellate court will not review the merits
Whether the trial court’s oral denial tolled Rule 1:1 and preserved jurisdiction	Oral ruling at Feb 9 preserved the matter	Oral ruling does not satisfy Rule 1:1; the court speaks through written orders only	Oral announcement did not toll Rule 1:1; written order was required within 21 days; without it the later written denial was void
Whether the evidence was insufficient to prove Abruzzese was the driver	Officer’s description was general; plate identification could be mistaken; evidence did not prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt	Commonwealth presented sufficient circumstantial evidence (plates, DMV records, testimony)	Not reached on the merits — sufficiency claim waived for appeal because trial objections lacked specificity under Rule 5A:18

Riner v. Commonwealth, 268 Va. 296 (standard of appellate review; view facts in favor of Commonwealth)
Super Fresh Food Mkts. of Va. v. Ruffin, 263 Va. 555 (trial court loses jurisdiction after 21 days under Rule 1:1)
Wagner v. Shird, 257 Va. 584 (distinguishes rendition vs entry of judgment; court speaks through written orders)
McDowell v. Dye, 193 Va. 390 (same principle regarding entry of judgments)
Commonwealth v. Bass, 292 Va. 19 (preservation of sufficiency challenges requires proper motions to strike)
Correll v. Commonwealth, 42 Va. App. 311 (challenge to sufficiency waived if not raised with specificity)
Edwards v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 752 (general or abstract objections insufficient to preserve issues for appeal)