Richard Douglas Thomas, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia
62 Va. App. 104
| Va. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Norfolk Police patrolled a public housing project to enforce no-trespassing policy at midnight.
- Officers asked Thomas to identify himself; after identification, an officer sought consent to pat him down.
- Thomas lifted his hands and turned toward the officer; the officer interpreted this as non-verbal consent and searched.
- A 9mm Ruger handgun was recovered from Thomas’s waistband; he was indicted for possessing a firearm after a violent felony.
- Thomas moved to suppress, conceding the encounter was consensual; trial court denied, finding nonverbal consent supported the pat-down.
- Five months later, Thomas moved to reopen/reconsider the suppression ruling to repudiate the concession; the court denied; trial proceeded with conviction on the underlying charge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to reopen/reconsider | Thomas sought to repudiate the concession and reargue suppression | Commonwealth argues no abuse given lack of good cause | No abuse; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Winston v. Commonwealth, 268 Va. 564 (2004) (discretion in rehearing; standard for reconsideration)
- Laughlin v. Rose, 200 Va. 127 (1958) (reopening evidentiary matters; due diligence required)
- Downing v. Huston, 149 Va. 1 (1927) (valid excuse and purposes for reopening preclude endless litigation)
- Holmes v. Holmes, 7 Va. App. 472 (1988) (courts end controversies; cannot relitigate by mere regret)
- Rahnema v. Rahnema, 47 Va. App. 645 (2006) (stipulations binding where relied upon by court; changing mind not favored)
- Pritchett v. Commonwealth, 61 Va. App. _ (2013) (withdrawal of guilty plea not allowed for mere gamesmanship)