Gheorghiu v. Com.
701 S.E.2d 407
| Va. | 2010Background
- Gheorghiu and cousin traveled from New York to Virginia, using Gheorghiu's valid card in Alexandria to check in, and then used various stolen numbers to buy items in Alexandria, Fairfax, and Arlington.
- Arlington County police stopped Gheorghiu for speeding on Sept. 21, 2005; arrest yielded a laptop, remagger software, and files with names and card numbers of about 100 people, including Keltz and Kent.
- Gheorghiu was indicted in Arlington on 57 counts: 9 identity theft, 36 credit card theft, 8 credit card forgery, 3 credit card fraud, and 1 possession of burglarious tools.
- Court of Appeals reversed some convictions and affirmed the rest, holding venue for identity theft related to Keltz in Arlington, and that possession of Kent’s number in Arlington satisfied venue for credit card fraud; Meeks-like analysis followed.
- This Virginia Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded: upheld most credit card theft convictions for venue not properly challenged; vacated identity theft relating to Keltz and credit card fraud relating to Kent due to no strong venue showing.
- The key holdings: identity theft venue is improper in Arlington for Keltz; credit card fraud venue improper in Arlington for Kent; Meeks-based analysis rejected for venue; credits to remand for potential further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Arlington proper venue for identity theft (Keltz). | Gheorghiu asserts strong Arlington nexus via continuing offense theory. | Commonwealth contends ongoing possession creates venue. | Arlington venue improper; no strong presumption any part occurred there. |
| Whether Arlington proper venue for credit card fraud (Kent). | Gheorghiu argues Arlington was proper under act in furtherance theory. | Commonwealth relies on possession in Arlington as facilitating use elsewhere. | Arlington venue improper; crime completed prior to possession there. |
| Whether venue for 36 counts of credit card theft was properly preserved as to the rule 5:25 exceptions. | Gheorghiu seeks ends of justice/good cause to reconsider Meeks-based venue. | No contemporaneous objection; no grave injustice to excuse failure. | Ends of justice and good cause exceptions do not apply; venue issues not preserved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cheng v. Commonwealth, 240 Va. 26 (1990) (venue requires strong presumption of offense in Arlington for identity theft)
- Meeks v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 798 (2007) (credit card theft complete on taking; retention not 'withholding' venue-rule limit)
- Randall v. Commonwealth, 183 Va. 182 (1944) (venue considerations not merit of trial; remedy limited)
- Cheng v. Commonwealth, 240 Va. 26 (1990) (establishes framework for strong presumption in venue)
- Green v. Commonwealth, 266 Va. 81 (2003) (venue considerations and waiver principles)
- Ball v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 754 (1981) (ends of justice/waiver considerations in appellate review)
- Montague v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 697 (2000) (larceny venue fiction limited; do not extend to identity theft)
- Doane v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 500 (1977) (venue principles analogous to Montague)