Velazquez v. Commonwealth
791 S.E.2d 556
| Va. | 2016Background
- Velazquez, a Spanish‑speaking defendant with limited English, pleaded guilty on Oct. 30, 2014 to computer solicitation of a child pursuant to a written plea agreement; the Commonwealth nol-prossed a related charge in exchange.
- The trial court conducted a plea colloquy with a certified Spanish interpreter, accepted the plea, and informed Velazquez of a 15-year sentence with 10 years suspended.
- Velazquez mailed a pro se letter dated Nov. 4, 2014, stating he wished to appeal because language difficulties and haste had led him to sign the plea; a formal notice of appeal was filed Nov. 25, 2014 by newly appointed appellate counsel.
- Within 21 days of sentencing, counsel filed a motion to withdraw the guilty plea under Va. Code § 19.2-296; the trial court heard testimony from Velazquez alleging confusion and inadequate consultation.
- The trial court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to rule after a notice of appeal was filed and alternatively found no "manifest injustice;" the Court of Appeals agreed on jurisdictional grounds and declined to reach the merits.
- The Supreme Court granted review, held the trial court retained jurisdiction under § 19.2-296 for 21 days after entry of final judgment, but affirmed the denial of the motion on the alternative ground that Velazquez failed to prove manifest injustice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing a notice of appeal divests the trial court of jurisdiction to consider a post‑sentencing motion to withdraw a guilty plea under Code § 19.2‑296 | Velazquez: motion filed within 21‑day statutory period; trial court retained jurisdiction despite notice of appeal | Commonwealth/trial court: notice of appeal perfected appellate jurisdiction and divested trial court of power to act | Trial court retained jurisdiction for 21 days after entry of final order under § 19.2‑296; notice of appeal did not automatically divest jurisdiction |
| Whether Velazquez proved "manifest injustice" to withdraw his post‑sentencing guilty plea | Velazquez: plea was hurried, limited counsel consultation, language barrier and confusion made plea involuntary | Commonwealth: plea colloquy, interpreter, and defendant's own truthful admissions show plea was voluntary; no miscarriage of justice | Trial court did not abuse discretion: Velazquez failed to prove manifest injustice; alternative ruling affirmed |
| Standard of review for jurisdictional question and for denial of motion on merits | N/A | N/A | Jurisdiction: de novo review; Merits (denial of motion to withdraw plea): abuse of discretion (Parris standard) |
| Interaction of Rule 1:1 and § 19.2‑296 with appellate jurisdiction | Velazquez: statutory 21‑day retention of control governs; appellate notice timing does not conflict | Commonwealth: appellate court acquires jurisdiction when notice filed; some precedent suggests trial court actions post‑notice are void | Court: § 19.2‑296 and Rule 1:1 preserve trial court authority to act for 21 days on motions to withdraw pleas despite notice of appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Ghameshlouy v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 379 (2010) (discusses when appellate court obtains jurisdiction after notice of appeal)
- Walton v. Commonwealth, 256 Va. 85 (1998) (trial court was divested of jurisdiction when action occurred well beyond Rule 1:1 period and after appellate proceedings were underway)
- McCoy v. McCoy, 55 Va. App. 524 (2010) (notice of appeal generally transfers jurisdiction to appellate court)
- Justus v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 143 (2007) (presumption of validity of plea colloquy admissions; standard for post‑sentencing withdrawal motions)
- Howell v. Commonwealth, 60 Va. App. 737 (2012) (defines "manifest injustice" as an obvious miscarriage of justice, e.g., involuntary plea)
- Parris v. Commonwealth, 189 Va. 321 (1949) (establishes abuse‑of‑discretion standard for reviewing denial of post‑sentencing plea withdrawal)