Case Title: Panameno v. Commonwealth

Citation: 

Docket Number: 971361

State: virginia

Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Date: 1998-04-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
Present:  All the Justices 
 
SANTOS PANAMENO 
 
v.  Record No. 971361   OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY 
 
 
 
April 17, 1998 
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 
 
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 
 
 
Santos Panameno seeks reversal of his convictions for 
rape and extortion because the order entered by the juvenile 
court transferring him to the circuit court for adjudication 
did not contain a finding that Panameno was competent and, 
therefore, Panameno contends that the circuit court did not 
acquire jurisdiction to try him as an adult.  We conclude 
that, when a defendant does not contest his competency to 
stand trial, Code § 16.1-269.1 does not require an explicit 
finding of competence by the transferring court and, 
therefore, we will affirm the judgment of the Court of 
Appeals. 
 
In May 1995, petitions charging 17-year-old Panameno with 
two counts of rape and three counts of extortion were filed in 
the Arlington County Juvenile and Domestic Relations District 
Court.  Following a hearing, that court entered an order 
transferring Panameno to the Circuit Court of Arlington County 
for trial as an adult.  The order did not contain an explicit 
finding that Panameno was competent.  Panameno appealed the 
certification order.  Following a hearing, the circuit court 
 
2
concluded that the transfer order substantially complied with 
§ 16.1-269.1, and that it had jurisdiction over the matter. 
The Commonwealth obtained indictments against Panameno.  
He entered a conditional plea of guilty on two counts of rape 
and one count of extortion but reserved the right to challenge 
on appeal his certification as an adult and the transfer of 
the case to the circuit court.  The circuit court accepted 
Panameno's conditional plea and sentenced him to a four year 
indeterminate term.  The Court of Appeals denied Panameno's 
petition for appeal.  We awarded an appeal on a single issue:  
whether § 16.1-269.1 requires the juvenile and domestic 
relations court to make an explicit finding that the juvenile 
is competent before entering an order of transfer to the 
circuit court. 
 
Prior to 1994, § 16.1-269 required that, in order to 
transfer a juvenile defendant to circuit court for trial as an 
adult, the juvenile and domestic relations court had to make a 
number of specific findings, including a finding that the 
juvenile was "competent to stand trial."  If the juvenile and 
domestic relations court did not make this finding, the 
circuit court could not acquire jurisdiction over the 
juvenile.  See, e.g., Matthews v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 358, 
361, 218 S.E.2d 538, 541 (1975)(interpreting former § 16.1-176 
(repealed 1977), the predecessor of § 16.1-269). 
 
3
 
Section 16.1-269 was repealed in 1994 and replaced with 
§ 16.1-269.1, the statute applicable in this case.  The 
current statute makes transfer of a juvenile to the circuit 
court "subject to the following conditions."  As relevant 
here, one condition for transfer is that: 
3.  The juvenile is competent to stand trial.  
The juvenile is presumed to be competent and the 
burden is on the party alleging the juvenile is 
not competent to rebut the presumption by a 
preponderance of the evidence . . . . 
 
§ 16.1-269.1(A)(3). 
 
Panameno argues that pursuant to this section, a finding 
of competence must be made by the transferring court.  
However, the language in former § 16.1-269 directing the trial 
court to make specific findings before transferring a juvenile 
is not contained in the current section.  By this deletion, 
the General Assembly has determined that, unless the 
competency of a juvenile is challenged, an explicit finding by 
the juvenile and domestic relations court that the juvenile is 
competent is not required.  In this case, Panameno neither 
alleged that he was incompetent to stand trial nor did he 
present any evidence to that effect.  Therefore, an explicit 
finding that Panameno was competent to stand trial was not 
required. 
 
Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the Court of 
Appeals. 
Affirmed.