Reyes v. Commonwealth, 823 S.E.2d 243

Miguel Antonio Reyes pled guilty (Alford plea) to robbery; sentencing was set after a presentence report.
At the first sentencing date, court granted one continuance to allow consideration of youthful offender program eligibility.
On the eve of the rescheduled sentencing, Reyes’s family retained private counsel (Charles J. Swedish) and filed a motion substituting counsel and requesting a continuance under Va. Code § 19.2-159.1 (change in indigence).
The Commonwealth objected because the victim was present for victim-impact testimony; the court denied the continuance, allowed Swedish only to enter appearance if prepared, and proceeded with court-appointed counsel (Nord) for sentencing.
Reyes was sentenced to 45 years with 27 years suspended (18 years active) and appealed, arguing the court erred by denying the continuance required by § 19.2-159.1 and raising (but not preserved below) a Sixth Amendment claim.
The Court of Appeals affirmed; the Virginia Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the denial, holding the statute does not confer an independent remedial right to reverse when a court declines to grant a continuance absent a preserved constitutional claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Reyes)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth)	Held
Whether denial of a continuance was reversible error under Va. Code § 19.2-159.1 when defendant ceased to be indigent and retained counsel	§ 19.2-159.1 uses “shall” and therefore required the court to grant a reasonable continuance once private counsel was retained	The statute is primarily fiscal and directory; it does not create a personal right entitling Reyes to automatic reversal absent a showing his constitutional rights were violated	Court held the statute does not create an independent right or automatic remedy; denial is not reversible per se—remedy attaches only if Sixth Amendment rights were infringed and properly preserved

Ortiz v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 705 (abuse-of-discretion reversal standard for continuances)
Lawlor v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 187 (definition and limits of abuse of discretion)
Rickman v. Commonwealth, 294 Va. 531 (interpretation of mandatory language “shall” and directory statutes/remedies)
Lambert v. Sea Oats Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 293 Va. 245 (statute can circumscribe range of judicial discretion)
Evans v. Eaton Corp. Long Term Disability Plan, 514 F.3d 315 (abuse-of-discretion discussion quoted for context)
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice)
Marshall v. Rodgers, 569 U.S. 58 (right to counsel at critical stages)
Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759 (right to effective assistance of counsel)
Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (preparation as prerequisite to effective assistance)
L.F. v. Breit, 285 Va. 163 (construe statutes to avoid creating constitutional violations)