Michael Dewayne Culberson v. Commonwealth of Virginia
2006151
| Va. Ct. App. | Mar 21, 2017Background
- In April 2012, Officer Moffat observed Culberson exit a car with Mississippi plates at 2:00 a.m.; the car was parked facing traffic and Moffat suspected something was wrong.
- Moffat checked the plate and, while awaiting confirmation, looked into the vehicle and saw a glass smoking device on a paper towel within reach of the driver’s seat; she radioed Officer Robertson to detain Culberson.
- Robertson attempted to stop Culberson; Culberson resisted, was arrested, searched, and a car key was found in his pocket; officers seized the smoking device from the car which later tested positive for cocaine residue.
- Culberson moved to suppress evidence as the product of an unlawful arrest/search; the trial court denied the motion, finding factual disputes for a jury.
- A jury convicted Culberson of possession of cocaine (felony), obstruction of justice, and driving on a suspended license; the jury recommended 12 months’ jail for the felony.
- The trial court imposed five years with four years suspended on the felony conviction (i.e., a greater effective term than the jury’s recommendation); Culberson appealed suppression and sentencing issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of pipe/seizure (motion to suppress) | Culberson: arrest and seizure unlawful; evidence should be suppressed as fruit of unlawful stop/entry | Commonwealth: officers observed pipe in plain view and had cause to detain and arrest; factual disputes for jury | Court affirmed denial of suppression; Culberson waived a new legal argument on appeal (plain‑view/probable‑cause for pipe) because he had not raised it below |
| Proper basis for appellate review of new suppression theory | Culberson: plain‑view observation of a pipe that could be used for legitimate purposes does not alone create probable cause | Commonwealth: suppression ruling should stand; original arguments below controlled the record | Court refused to consider new argument under Rule 5A:18 (argument not raised at trial) |
| Sentencing above jury recommendation | Culberson: trial court exceeded permissible sentence; jury fixed maximum punishment at 12 months | Commonwealth: court could impose additional supervision term under statutory authority | Court held sentence exceeded statutory authority (trial court did not invoke postrelease supervision authority and imposed five years); remanded for resentencing |
| Applicability of ends‑of‑justice exception to preserve sentencing claim | Culberson: asks review under ends of justice despite no objection at sentencing | Commonwealth: concedes remand appropriate for resentencing | Court applied ends‑of‑justice exception because the sentence was invalid and remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Commonwealth, 270 Va. 414 (officer experience may inform probable cause analysis)
- Ohree v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 299 (issues not raised at trial are not considered on appeal)
- Correll v. Commonwealth, 42 Va. App. 311 (same—preservation rule requires specific trial objection)
- Edwards v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 752 (raising one argument at trial does not preserve a different legal point on appeal)
- Duncan v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 342 (jury fixes maximum punishment; judge may suspend but not increase it)
- Batts v. Commonwealth, 30 Va. App. 1 (trial judge may reduce but not exceed maximum punishment fixed by jury)
- Gordon v. Commonwealth, 61 Va. App. 682 (ends‑of‑justice exception applied where sentence exceeded statutory maximum)
- Porter v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 203 (abuse of discretion review for sentencing; legal error is abuse of discretion)
- Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81 (legal error as abuse of discretion)