Tharrington v. Commonwealth
715 S.E.2d 388
Va. Ct. App.2011Background
- Tharrington was convicted of grand larceny under Code § 18.2-95 and larceny with intent to sell or distribute under Code § 18.2-108.01 based on a single course of conduct.
- The offenses arose from burglary of the Dallos/Black residence where a PlayStation 3 was stolen and later pawned by Tharrington for $250 total.
- Tharrington challenged the indictments, arguing double jeopardy and that Code § 18.2-108.01 F constituted an unconstitutional or redundant offense when paired with grand larceny.
- The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, ruling that § 18.2-108.01 is a separate offense with its own intent.
- A jury found Tharrington guilty of statutory burglary, grand larceny, and larceny with intent to sell or distribute; he appeals the double jeopardy portion.
- The court conducts a de novo review to interpret legislative intent and the proper unit of prosecution under the statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether convicting both grand larceny and larceny with intent to sell/distribute violates double jeopardy | Tharrington asserts dual convictions punish the same conduct. | The Commonwealth contends the statutes authorize multiple punishments by design. | No double jeopardy violation; separate offenses permitted by statute. |
| Whether the legislature intended multiple punishments for larceny and larceny with intent to sell/distribute | The acts constitute one criminal event with varied mens rea. | Statutes expressly contemplate distinct offenses and penalties. | Legislative intent unambiguous; § 18.2-108.01(C) permits multiple punishments. |
| Whether Blockburger applies or legislative intent controls in this context | Blockburger should require proof of distinct elements, indicating a single offense. | Legislature may create separate offenses even with overlapping elements. | Legislative intent controls; Blockburger not controlling when statute language is clear. |
| Whether the court must interpret statutory language de novo for double jeopardy | Review should focus on the overlap of facts. | Court should interpret the statute’s text to discern intent. | De novo review applied; plain language of § 18.2-108.01(C) supports multiple punishments. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lane v. Commonwealth, 51 Va. App. 565 (2008) (double jeopardy and multiple punishments analyzed)
- Kelsoe v. Commonwealth, 226 Va. 197 (1983) (legislative intent governs unit of prosecution)
- Jordan v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 590 (1986) (distinct offenses may justify cumulative punishments)
- Payne v. Commonwealth, 257 Va. 216 (1999) (statutory scheme permits multiple punishments)
- Washington v. Commonwealth, 272 Va. 449 (2006) (analyze legislative intent in statutory interpretation)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (same act; determine if each offense requires proof of an additional fact)
- Coleman v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 196 (2001) (Blockburger applies but not if legislative intent is clear)
- Davis v. Commonwealth, 57 Va. App. 446 (2011) (de novo review of double jeopardy claims)