Gаry Earl Neighbors appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Orange County which denied his appeal from the General District Court of Orange County's refusal of his petition for a writ of coram nobis. Neighbors contends the circuit court erred when it ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to consider his appeal and that a writ of coram nobis was "not the proper vehicle to challenge" Neighbors' guilty plea. For the reasons set forth below, we will reverse the judgment of the circuit court in part, affirm the judgment in part, and enter final judgment.
I. BACKGROUND AND MATERIAL PROCEEDINGS BELOW
Neighbors was arrested for violating Code § 18.2-479.1 2 but entered an Alford plea to the reduced charge of rеsisting arrest in the General District Court of Orange County on June 14, 2004. 3 Neighbors was convicted and fined $50. After the statutory period to appeal his conviction to the circuit court had expired under Code § 16.1-132, Neighbors filed a pleading styled "Petition in Form of Writ of Error Coram Nobis and Motion to Revoke/Vacаte Plea" in the district court on September 30, 2004. Neighbors contended in the petition that when he originally entered his guilty plea, he "did not have the requisite capacity to enter a plea" because he was "taking heavy doses of medication at the time the plea was givеn."
The general district court denied the petition by order which stated that Neighbors' "Petition for a Writ Coram Nobis and Motion to Revoke/Vacate Plea does not lie within the jurisdiction of the General District Court." Neighbors timely appealed the general district court's order to the circuit court whiсh denied the appeal by an order dated August 25, 2006. The circuit court's order stated:
[T]he Circuit Court does not have appellate jurisdiction of this matter under [Code §] 16.1-132 . . . as the time to perfect an appeal from the General District Court in a criminal matter has elapsed, the mаtter before the Court is civil in nature, the matter is not an appeal of a bond forfeiture and other appeal rights conferred under [Code § ] 16.1-132 are applicable; and
[U]nder [Code § ] 16.1-106 [Neighbors] does not have a right to appeal an order or judgment from the General Distriсt Court to the Circuit Court, as this matter although civil in nature, is not a matter in which the amount in controversy is of greater value than fifty dollars;
[A] writ of coram nobis in the Commonwealth of Virginia is not the proper vehicle to challenge the insanity/incapacity of the defendant in regards to their plea of guilt and that the Circuit Court has no jurisdiction to correct errors in the record of the General District Court of the matters and issues as asked by [Neighbors] in [his] writ of coram nobis . . . .
Neighbors assigned error to the circuit court's judgment that it lacked jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a general district court under Code § 16.1-106 for the denial of a writ of coram nobis. In addition, he assigned error to the circuit court's judgment that "a Writ of Coram Nobis is not a proper method of challenging Neighbors' incapacity at the time the plea was entered." 4 We awarded Neighbors this appeal.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Introduction
In
Dobie v. Commonwealth,
The writ of error coram vobis, or coram nobis, is an ancient writ of the common law. It was called coram nobis (before us) in King's Bench because the king was supposed to preside in person in that court. It was called coram vobis (before you-the king's justices) in Common Pleas, where the king was not supposed to reside. The difference related only to the form appropriate to each court and the distinction disappeared in this country when the need for it ended. 49 C.J.S., Judgments, § 311, p. 561, n. 28. Mr. Minor says the proper designation here is coram vobis. IV Minor's Inst., 3 ed., Part I, pp. 1052-3.
The principal function of the writ is to afford to the court in which an action was tried an opportunity to correct its own record with reference to a vital fact not known when the judgment was rendered, and which could not have been presented by a motion for a new trial, appeal or other existing statutory proceeding. Black's Law Dict., 3 ed., p. 1861; 24 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 1606 b., p. 145;
Ford v. Commonwealth,
Our statute is in simple, clear and unambiguous language, and we read it to mean what it says. It does not provide that it may be used to obtain a writ of error, or an appeal, or for any purpose other than to correct a "clerical error or error in fact." It does not supplant the writ of habeas corpus. If its provisions should be widened, the enlargement should be effected by the legislature.
With this historical and statutory background in mind, we now turn to Neighbors' assignments of error.
B. Jurisdiction of the Circuit Court
Neighbors contends on appeal that at the time of his general district court plea on the resisting arrest charge, "thе various, medically prescribed medications he was taking rendered him incompetent and thus unable to grasp the gravity of his situation and to knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily enter a plea of guilt." Although Neighbors contends the general district court erred in holding it did not have jurisdiction to consider the рetition, the issue on appeal is whether the circuit court erred in concluding that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the general district court. Neighbors argues that the circuit court erred in concluding that the writ of coram vobis was not a subject embraced by Cоde § 16.1-106 regarding civil cases for which an appeal lies from the general district court to the circuit court.
7
He contends that Code § 16.1-106, when read in light of our decision in
City of Virginia Beach v. Siebert,
The Commonwealth responds that because Code § 16.1-106 "on its face does not remotely suggest that coram nobis is among the categories of cases appealable from courts not of record to circuit courts," the circuit court was therefore without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. We agree with Neighbors on this issue.
Code § 17.1-513 sets forth the jurisdiction of the circuit courts and provides, in pertinent part:
[Circuit courts] shall have appellate jurisdiction of all cases, civil and criminal, in which an appeal, writ of error or supersеdeas may, as provided by law, be taken to or allowed by such courts, or the judges thereof, from or to the judgment or proceedings of any inferior tribunal.
As Code § 17.1-513 recites, the circuit court would have appellate jurisdiction in this case if the appeal on denial of a writ оf coram vobis is an appeal "as provided by law." The circuit court apparently reasoned in the case at bar that it lacked jurisdiction over Neighbors' appeal because "this matter although civil in nature, is not a matter in which the amount in controversy is of greatеr value than fifty dollars," and thus was not "as provided by law" for purposes of Code § 17.1-513.
The circuit court's reference to an amount in controversy requirement is set forth in Code § 16.1-106, which provides, in pertinent part:
From any order entered or judgment rendered in a court not of record in a civil case in which the matter in controversy is of greater value than fifty dollars, exclusive of interest, any attorney's fees contracted for in the instrument, and costs, or when the case involves the constitutionality or validity of a statute of the Commonwealth, or of an ordinance or bylaw of a municipal corporation, or of the enforcement of rights and privileges conferred by the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (§ 2.2-3700 et seq.), or of a protective order pursuant to § 19.2-152.10, there shall be an appeal of right, if taken within ten days after such order or judgment, to а court of record.
We have "interpret[ed] the monetary controversy provision of Code § 16.1-106 as language intended to exclude a right of appeal in those civil cases involving an insignificant monetary controversy."
Siebert,
In
Siebert,
the City of Virginia Beach appealed a general district court judgment dismissing a charge of refusal to take a blood or alcohol test by Siebert to the circuit court.
Thus, we know from Siebert that the circuit court's restriction of Code § 16.1-106 in this case to only monetary cases was erroneous. There is no restriction to an appeal of a petition for a writ of error coram vobis from the general district court to the circuit court because it is a non-monetary civil proceeding. Accordingly, the appeal of the denial of a writ of coram vobis is within the jurisdiction of a circuit court under Code § 17.1-513.
The circuit court thus erred in determining it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the judgment of the general district court. However, notwithstanding the circuit court's holding, its judgment enunciated an alternative holding on the merits of Neighbors' claim, which we now review because that holding is dispositive of this case.
C. Application of a Writ of Coram Vobis
Assuming the circuit court had jurisdiction to hear his appeal, Neighbors contends the circuit court also erred in ruling his guilty plea could not be challenged by a writ of coram vobis based on his claim of lack of capacity. The Commonwealth responds that the circuit court was сorrect in this regard because Neighbors had other remedies including a timely appeal under Code § 16.1-132 or a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Commonwealth also responds that our jurisprudence in Dobie and Blowe recognizes Code § 8.01-677 has significantly restricted the use of a writ of coram vobis.
Code § 8.01-677 makes clear that the limited purpose of a writ of coram vobis is to correct only "clerical error" or certain "error in fact." As we noted earlier, this
Court explained in
Blowe
that the writ of coram vobis should not be used "for any purpose other than to correct a `clerical error or error in fact.'"
Neighbors' general allegation that he suffered from some undefined lack of capacity due to medication аt the time of his guilty plea is not a clerical error. Neither is it a claim of an error in fact. Accordingly, under the record in this case, a writ of coram vobis would not lie as a means by which Neighbors could collaterally challenge his guilty plea. The circuit court did not err in that portiоn of its judgment which determined the writ of coram vobis was thus not available to Neighbors.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we will reverse that part of the circuit court's judgment holding Neighbors did not have a right of appeal to the circuit court. We will affirm the judgment of the circuit court that a writ of cоram vobis would not lie in this case to enable Neighbors to challenge his guilty plea, and therefore we will enter final judgment in favor of the Commonwealth.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and final judgment.
Code § 18.2-479.1 states that "[a]ny person who intentionally prevents or attempts to prevent a law-enforcement officer from lawfully аrresting him, with or without a warrant, is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor."
See North Carolina v. Alford,
Neighbors also asserted a third assignment of error:
The Circuit Court erred when it stated the Circuit Court could not correct matters on thе record of the General District Court because it is inherent in the grant of appellate jurisdiction to the Circuit Court that the Circuit Court would have the power to correct matters of fact of the inferior tribunal especially considering that civil matters on appeal to thе Circuit Court are ruled upon in de novo proceedings. We do not need to reach this assignment of error because our disposition of the other assignments of error is dispositive.
For purposes of this opinion, we will use the term coram vobis, as recognized in Code § 8.01-677. Coram vobis shаll be deemed to include the term coram nobis and both shall be considered to be the same proceeding in modern pleading and practice.
Blowe considered Code § 8-485 (1950), predecessor to current Code § 8.01-677. The primary text of the two statutes is nearly identical.
While a writ of coram vobis may be applicable in criminal or civil proceedings,
see United States v. Morgan,