846 S.E.2d 23
Va. Ct. App.2020Background
- Police observed Peters commit an illegal U-turn and then flee a traffic stop at high speed; a pursuit ended when the suspect vehicle and the patrol car collided in an alley.
- After the collision, Peters exited his vehicle holding what turned out to be a phone; Officer Hill drew his firearm, ordered Peters to show his hands, and Peters ran.
- Officer Hill chased, warned “Taser!” three times, deployed his taser, and then placed himself on top of Peters; they struggled briefly before backup arrived and Peters was arrested.
- Peters pleaded guilty to felony eluding, driving on a suspended license, and reckless driving; he contested the charge under Code § 18.2-460(E) (attempting to prevent arrest by fleeing) and two counts of assault and battery on an officer.
- The trial court convicted Peters of the § 18.2-460(E) charge, reasoning Peters’s refusal to show his hands constituted obstruction; Peters appealed arguing the court applied the wrong standard (avoidance vs. flight).
- The Court of Appeals held the trial court erred to the extent it treated noncompliance alone as flight, but affirmed under the "right result for a different reason" doctrine because undisputed facts (warnings, taser deployment, officer’s ability to physically arrest) satisfied § 18.2-460(E)(ii).
Issues
| Issue | Peters' Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency to convict under Code § 18.2-460(E) (fleeing to prevent arrest) | Refusal to follow commands (not showing hands) is not "fleeing"; avoidance ≠ resistance; court applied wrong standard | Evidence shows Peters fled after commands and officer communicated arrest/ had immediate ability to arrest (taser, chase, physical control) | Trial court erred in reasoning, but conviction affirmed: undisputed facts satisfy § 18.2-460(E)(ii) (officer had immediate physical ability and communicated arrest) |
| Procedural—new assignment of error raised on appeal but not in petition | Seeks to add insufficiency argument here | Cannot add new assignment not in petition for appeal | Court declined to consider newly raised assignment but addressed overlapping sufficiency issues already preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- Joseph v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 332 (2015) (refusal to comply alone is insufficient; "fleeing" requires movement beyond officer's immediate span of control)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Riner v. Commonwealth, 268 Va. 296 (2004) (view evidence in light most favorable to Commonwealth on sufficiency review)
- Banks v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 612 (2010) (standards for applying right-result-for-wrong-reason doctrine on appeal)
- Spinner v. Commonwealth, 297 Va. 384 (2019) (limits on applying right-result-for-wrong-reason doctrine)
- Perry v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 572 (2010) (discussion of appellate review when trial court gives erroneous reasons)