Shelton Legrand Riddick v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 842 S.E.2d 419

Shelton Riddick was convicted in General District Court on multiple driving-related offenses and appealed to the Chesapeake Circuit Court for a trial de novo.
The circuit court continued the trial twice by agreed orders signed/endorsed by Riddick’s counsel; both orders stated the matter "will be heard by the court" and included language that failure to request a jury at least 30 days before trial waived a jury.
A bench trial was held on June 20, 2019; Riddick and counsel made no contemporaneous objection or request for a jury during the circuit-court proceedings.
The circuit court found Riddick guilty on all counts and sentenced him; Riddick appealed to the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
On appeal Riddick argued for the first time that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to try him without a jury because the record did not show a knowing and intelligent waiver as required by the Virginia Constitution and applicable rules.
The Commonwealth argued the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction under statutes authorizing appeals from district court and that any objection to a bench trial was waived; the Court of Appeals considered whether subject matter jurisdiction existed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to try Riddick without a jury because the record lacks a knowing and intelligent waiver	Riddick: lack of on-record, knowing waiver means court lacked subject matter jurisdiction; jurisdictional defect may be raised at any time	Commonwealth: circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction via statutory grant over appeals of district-court convictions; any objection to bench trial was waived and the record supports consent	Held: Circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction under statutes authorizing appeals (Code §§ 16.1-132 and 17.1-513). The argument that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction fails; defects short of subject matter jurisdiction (active-jurisdiction defects) are waivable and were not preserved.

Pure Presbyterian Church of Washington v. Grace of God Presbyterian Church, 296 Va. 42 (2018) (distinguishes subject matter jurisdiction from other jurisdictional defects and explains consequences of lack of subject matter jurisdiction)
Cilwa v. Commonwealth, 298 Va. 259 (2019) (explains "active jurisdiction" vs subject matter jurisdiction and that defects in active jurisdiction can be waived)
Richardson v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 436 (2017) (discusses need for defendant consent to bench trial and usage of "jurisdiction" in active-jurisdiction sense)
Cave v. Cunningham, 203 Va. 737 (1962) (vacated conviction where record failed to show Commonwealth's concurrence in jury-waiver; relied on by appellant but not read as imposing subject matter defect here)
Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506 (1869) (principle that a court lacking subject matter jurisdiction can only announce the lack and dismiss; orders entered without subject matter jurisdiction are void)
Cunningham v. Smith, 205 Va. 205 (1964) (requires that consent and concurrence in waiver be "entered of record")