Robert Allen Wilkins v. Commonwealth of Virginia
64 Va. App. 711
Va. Ct. App.2015Background
- Appellant Wilkins was convicted by jury of third-offense petit larceny, a Class 6 felony under VA Code § 18.2-104.
- Record on appeal is a partial transcript from the October 30, 2013 trial in the circuit court.
- Defense objected to trial proceeding with appellant wearing Portsmouth City Jail uniform clothes (green scrub outfit, black sneakers, left-arm bracelet).
- Trial judge sought alternatives to jail clothing and granted a recess to explore civilian clothing options (including potential clothing from Public Defender’s Office).
- Appellant disrupted the trial; the court described a pattern of behavior suggesting delay or avoidance of trial; multiple continuances occurred.
- The Court affirmed the conviction, holding no reversible Estelle error given the record; the record did not show compelled jail attire or clearly identifiable jail clothing, and findings of bad faith were not clearly erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was appellant compelled to stand trial in jail clothing under Estelle v. Williams? | Wilkins argues Estelle requires a reasonable opportunity to obtain civilian clothing. | Commonwealth contends there was no state compulsion; there was an opportunity to obtain civilian clothes. | No reversible Estelle error based on record facts. |
| Did the record establish actual state compulsion to wear jail clothes? | Wilkins asserts state compulsion given jail officials' refusals and limited recess. | Commonwealth contends there was no explicit compulsion; opportunity to procure civilian clothing existed. | Record insufficient to prove state compulsion. |
| Were the clothes clearly identifiable jail clothing? | Jail attire was clearly identifiable to jurors as prison clothing. | Attire described as green scrubs with minimal identifying features; jury may not have recognized it as jail clothing. | Record did not show clearly identifiable jail clothing. |
| Did the trial court provide a reasonable opportunity to obtain civilian clothes? | Appellant contends no adequate opportunity; two rejections by jail and a brief recess were insufficient. | Court offered a recess and attempted alternatives; record supports opportunity. | Record failed to prove a reasonable opportunity; Estelle not violated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (U.S. Supreme Court 1976) (compelling to wear prison clothes violates due process absent opportunity to obtain civilian clothing)
- Jackson v. Washington, 270 Va. 269 (Va. 2005) (case-by-case inquiry; no per se rule; jail apparel may violate due process when compelled)
- Martin v. Commonwealth, 11 Va.App. 397 (Va. Ct. App. 1990) (trial court must state reasons for restraints; abstain from forcing jail attire without justification)
- United States v. Hurtado, 47 F.3d 577 (2d Cir. 1995) (affirms need for opportunity to pursue civilian clothing; not dispositive here)
- Wansley v. Commonwealth, 205 Va. 419 (Va. 1964) (record must show sufficient evidence of error on appeal)
- Smith v. Commonwealth, 16 Va.App. 630 (Va. Ct. App. 1993) (limits on appellate review when record is incomplete)
- Harris v. Woodrum, 703 F.2d 508 (11th Cir. 1983) (trusts trial court observations on whether clothing is clearly jail attire)
- Knott v. State, Knott v. *State (Md. 1998) (jury may identify garb as prison attire; relevance to Estelle analysis)