Williams v. Commonwealth
57 Va. App. 750
| Va. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Appellant Tony Williams was convicted in Virginia Court of Appeals of two counts of misdemeanor failure to appear under Code § 19.2-128 and two counts of failure to provide support under Code § 20-61.
- Support obligations were set in 2002 and a 2004 divorce finalized; from Sept 2004 to Sept 2005, Williams allegedly did not pay support, while the family faced financial hardship.
- Indictments followed: Sept 6, 2005 for failure to provide support (Sept 2004–Sept 2005) and for failure to appear; Williams posted bond but later failed to appear on scheduled dates.
- Recognizance bond allowed travel for work/school; Williams signed Sept 19, 2006 promising to appear, with continuances and later failure to appear on Nov 17, 2006 and Dec 5, 2006.
- Commonwealth sought judicial notice of court records; trial court found Williams failed to appear on Nov 17, 2006 and Dec 5, 2006 based on those records; Williams challenged the notice.
- Trial in 2010; the court affirmed two 19.2-128 convictions, affirmed two 20-61 convictions, but reversed and dismissed the December 5, 2006 failure-to-appear conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly took judicial notice of its records | Williams: improper notice of record scope and non-identification of facts. | Commonwealth: noticed entire record via request to take notice of its records. | Court properly took judicial notice of its records and date/time of hearings. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for failure to appear on November 17, 2006 | Evidence insufficient to prove willful failure if notice flawed. | Notice established via recognizance and orders; failure was willful. | Sufficient evidence to support November 17, 2006 failure to appear. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for failure to appear on December 5, 2006 | No timely notice to appear on that date. | Notice relied on December 5 order memorializing earlier ruling. | Conviction for December 5, 2006 failed; reversed and dismissed. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for violation of Code § 20-61 (child support) | Evidence shows child necessitous circumstances due to nonpayment. | Need not prove causation; necessitous circumstances existed independent of causation. | Evidence sufficient; convictions under § 20-61 affirmed. |
| Double jeopardy / multiple convictions for same conduct | Constitutional bar to multiple punishments for same conduct. | Not clearly argued; waiver here due to procedural failure to raise timely. | Objection waived; no reversal on double jeopardy grounds. |
| Election of civil child support precludes criminal prosecution | Boaze v. Commonwealth bars criminal action when civil remedy chosen. | Distinguishable; parties differ and res judicata not applicable. | Res judicata/Boaze distinction does not bar the criminal § 20-61 prosecutions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Commonwealth, 190 Va. 280 (Va. 1949) (judicial notice and expedition of trials; general principle)
- Hunter v. Commonwealth, 15 Va.App. 717 (Va. App. 1993) (willful failure to appear; prima facie evidence)
- Burton v. Commonwealth, 109 Va. 800 (Va. 1909) (necessitous circumstances standard in §20-61)
- Boaze v. Commonwealth, 165 Va. 786 (Va. 1935) (res judicata and election of remedies in support proceedings)
- Wright v. Wright, 164 Va. 245 (Va. 1935) (two remedies for support; res judicata implications)
- Sykes v. Commonwealth, 37 Va.App. 262 (Va. App. 2001) (timeliness of double jeopardy objections)
- Neff v. Commonwealth, 39 Va.App. 13 (Va. App. 2002) (res judicata doctrine and procedures)
- Va. Polytechnic Inst. & State Univ. v. Interactive Return Serv., Inc., 271 Va. 304 (Va. 2006) (plain language in statutory interpretation)