Elias P. Doulgerakis v. Commonwealth of Virginia
61 Va. App. 417
| Va. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Appellant Elias P. Doulgerakis was convicted in a bench trial of misdemeanor possession of a concealed weapon under Code § 18.2-308.
- The handgun was found after Officer Jones stopped appellant for a traffic violation and observed a handgun in the glove box.
- The glove box was closed and latched but not locked.
- Appellant disclosed the handgun in the glove box; he was charged with carrying a concealed weapon without a permit.
- Code § 18.2-308(B)(10) provides an exception for a firearm in a vehicle if it is secured in a container or compartment; the vehicle was a private vehicle.
- Trial court ruled the weapon was not secured under the statute, and convicted appellant; the issue on appeal is whether an unlocked but latched glove box satisfies the “secured in a container or compartment” requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an unlocked but latched glove box satisfies “secured in a container or compartment” under § 18.2-308(B)(10). | Doulgerakis argues the gun was secured and exempt. | Commonwealth conceded error, but initially argued gun was not secured because readily accessible. | The court held the glove box was secured; exemption applies and the conviction is reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schaaf v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 429, 258 S.E.2d 574 (Va. 1979) (purpose of concealed weapon statute: to interdict carrying so as to be readily accessible for use)
- Uniwest Constr., Inc. v. Amtech Elevator Servs., Inc., 280 Va. 428, 699 S.E.2d 223 (Va. 2010) (legislative public policy balance; judiciary interprets words as legislature used them)
- Wright v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 754, 685 S.E.2d 655 (Va. 2009) (statutory interpretation: plain meaning unless ambiguous)
- City of Virginia Beach v. ESG Enters., 243 Va. 149, 413 S.E.2d 642 (Va. 1992) (read the statute’s words as written to determine legislative intent)
- Wade v. Commonwealth, 202 Va. 117, 116 S.E.2d 99 (Va. 1960) (penal statutes construed strictly against the Commonwealth)
- Brown v. Lukhard, 229 Va. 316, 330 S.E.2d 84 (Va. 1985) (ambiguity in statutory language; interpret in light of ambiguity)
- Epps v. Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 687, 626 S.E.2d 912 (Va. App. 2006) (en banc; cautions against binding by party concessions of law)
- Logan v. Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 168, 622 S.E.2d 771 (Va. App. 2005) (en banc; plain meaning interpretation principles)
- Tazewell County Sch. Bd. v. Brown, 267 Va. 150, 591 S.E.2d 671 (Va. 2004) (statutory interpretation and public policy considerations)