Jay Hoon Kim v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 0116171

Appellant Jay Hoon Kim was charged in 2015 with possession of a firearm in violation of Va. Code § 18.2-308.2(A), which forbids persons under 29 who were adjudicated delinquent at age 14+ for an act that would be a felony from possessing firearms.
The Commonwealth introduced juvenile court records showing Kim was adjudicated delinquent in 2008 on breaking/entering and grand larceny charges; those records sometimes omitted an explicit checkmark indicating counsel was present at the June 25, 2008 adjudicatory hearing.
Other juvenile-court documents showed the public defender was appointed on February 5, 2008, and counsel’s presence was noted at multiple hearings; the adjudicatory/dispositional record header included the handwritten notation "Public Defender."
At trial Kim objected to admitting the juvenile record, arguing the adjudication order was invalid because it did not indicate counsel’s presence or a waiver, so the presumption of regularity should not apply.
The trial court admitted the juvenile records, finding the unchecked "Attorney" box was an inadvertent scrivener’s error and that other documents established counsel’s representation; Kim moved to strike but was denied and convicted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Kim)	Held
Admissibility of juvenile conviction record to prove prior delinquency for § 18.2-308.2(A) element	Records presumptively regular; other documents show public defender was appointed and present, so conviction is valid and admissible	The adjudicatory/disposition form is facially invalid because it lacks an express indication of counsel or waiver at the adjudication, rebutting the presumption of regularity	Trial court did not abuse discretion: presumption of regularity applies; unchecked box was a scrivener’s error and other documents established counsel’s presence, so records were admissible

Samuels v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 119, 497 S.E.2d 873 (Va. Ct. App. 1998) (presumption of regularity supports admission of prior conviction absent evidence rebutting counseled representation)
Nicely v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 579, 490 S.E.2d 281 (Va. Ct. App. 1997) (every act of a court is presumed rightly done until the contrary appears)
James v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 746, 446 S.E.2d 900 (Va. Ct. App. 1994) (silent record or bare assertion insufficient to rebut presumption of regularity)
Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20 (U.S. 1992) (reiterating presumption that courts act properly unless contrary appears)
Williams v. Commonwealth, 49 Va. App. 439, 642 S.E.2d 295 (Va. Ct. App. 2007) (standard for viewing evidence in light most favorable to the Commonwealth)