Case Title: Amin v. County of Henrico

Citation: 

Docket Number: 122035

State: virginia

Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Date: 2013-10-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
Present:  All the Justices 
 
TARIQ RASHAD AMIN 
 
 
 
 
v.  Record No. 122035 
                OPINION BY 
                                  JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS 
COUNTY OF HENRICO 
 
 
 
   October 31, 2013 
 
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 
 
 
In this appeal, we consider whether the Court of Appeals 
of Virginia erred in holding that Rule 5A:12 prevented it from 
addressing whether the circuit court's order convicting Tariq 
Rashad Amin ("Amin") was void ab initio. 
I.  Facts and Proceedings Below 
 
 
Amin was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon in 
violation of "Henrico County Ordinance 22-2 incorporating 
Virginia Code Section 18.2-308."  He appealed his conviction 
to the Court of Appeals of Virginia ("Court of Appeals").  In 
his petition for appeal he included one assignment of error, 
which stated, "The trial court erred in denying the motion to 
suppress."  The Court of Appeals denied the petition for 
appeal. 
 
Amin filed a petition for rehearing by a three-judge 
panel.  His petition included one assignment of error, which 
stated, "The Court erred in holding that the trial court did 
not err in denying the motion to suppress."  The Court of 
Appeals granted Amin's petition for rehearing.  Amin then 
filed his "Appellant Designation of the Appendix and 
 
2 
Assignments of Error."  In this pleading, Amin included two 
assignments of error.  He kept his original assignment of 
error challenging the denial of the motion to suppress, but 
also added an additional assignment of error, which stated, 
"That the conviction is void as a matter of law as there 
exists no Henrico County Ordinance 22-2 incorporating Virginia 
Code Section 18.2-308." 
 
The Court of Appeals issued a published opinion, Amin v. 
County of Henrico, 61 Va. App. 67, 733 S.E.2d 661 (2012), in 
which it affirmed Amin's conviction.  In its opinion, the 
Court of Appeals noted that Henrico County Ordinance 22-2 only 
adopts and incorporates the provisions of Title 18.2, Chapter 
7, Article 2, while the criminal act of carrying a concealed 
weapon under Code § 18.2-308 is in Title 18.2, chapter 7, 
Article 7.  Id. at 73, 733 S.E.2d at 664 (emphasis added). 
The Court of Appeals acknowledged that "[i]t is well 
recognized that an order which is void ab initio is 'a 
complete nullity and it may be impeached directly or 
collaterally by all persons, anywhere, at any time, or in any 
manner.'"  Id. at 74, 733 S.E.2d at 664 (quoting Singh v. 
Mooney, 261 Va. 48, 51-52, 541 S.E.2d 549, 551 (2001)).  
However, the Court of Appeals held that because Amin had not 
included the new assignment of error in his petition for 
appeal, it could not address whether the conviction order was 
 
3 
void ab initio.  Amin, 61 Va. App. at 73, 733 S.E.2d at 664. 
The Court of Appeals explained that "an appellate court must 
properly have acquired appellate jurisdiction itself before it 
can hear a challenge to any lower court or agency's actions," 
and determined that because Amin did not comply with Rule 
5A:12(c), the Court of Appeals could not address the issue.  
Id. at 74-75, 733 S.E.2d at 665 (internal quotation marks 
omitted). 
 
Amin timely filed a petition for appeal in this Court, 
and we awarded him an appeal on the following assignment of 
error: 
That the Court of Appeals erred in denying 
that the conviction is void as a matter of 
law as there exists no Henrico County 
Ordinance 22-2 incorporating Virginia Code 
Section 18.2-308 pursuant to the ends of 
justice exception of Rule 5A:18 by 
applying Rule 5A:12.  Relief is requested 
here pursuant to Rule 5:25. 
 
II.  Analysis 
 
A. 
Rule 5:17 
 
We must first address whether Amin's assignment of error 
to this Court is sufficient.  Rule 5:17(c) requires that all 
petitions for appeal filed in this Court list the specific 
errors in the rulings below that the appellant challenges.  
"When appeal is taken from a judgment of the Court of Appeals, 
only assignments of error relating to assignments of error 
 
4 
presented in, and to actions taken by, the Court of Appeals 
may be included in the petition for appeal to this Court."  
Rule 5:17(c)(ii). 
 
Although Amin's assignment of error could certainly have 
been more artfully drafted, it is sufficient to assert that 
the Court of Appeals erred by applying Rule 5A:12 and refusing 
to address whether Amin's conviction was void ab initio as a 
matter of law.  Accordingly, we will now address the merits of 
his appeal. 
B. 
Standard of Review 
 
 
We review questions of law de novo.  See Stevens v. 
Commonwealth, 283 Va. 296, 302, 720 S.E.2d 80, 82 (2012).  "A 
lower court's interpretation of the Rules of this Court, like 
its interpretation of a statute, presents a question of law 
that we review de novo."  LaCava v. Commonwealth, 283 Va. 465, 
469, 722 S.E.2d 838, 840 (2012) (citations omitted). 
C. 
Discussion 
 
Rule 5A:12(c)(1) sets out the requirements for petitions 
for appeal filed in the Court of Appeals.  It states in 
relevant part: 
(i) Effect of Failure to Assign Error.  
Only assignments of error assigned in the 
petition for appeal will be noticed by 
this Court.  If the petition for appeal 
does not contain assignments of error, it 
shall be dismissed. 
 
 
5 
 
The Court of Appeals is correct that ordinarily when a 
party fails to comply with Rule 5A:12, the Court of Appeals 
may refuse to consider any assignment of error that is not 
raised in a timely manner or not properly included in the 
petition for appeal.  However, the exception to that general 
rule was articulated by this Court in Singh v. Mooney. 
In Singh, we held that an order that is void ab initio 
"may be impeached directly or collaterally by all persons, 
anywhere, at any time, or in any manner." 261 Va. at 52, 541 
S.E.2d at 551 (internal quotation marks omitted).  We also 
held that Rule 1:1, which limits the jurisdiction of a court 
to twenty-one days after entry of the final order, does not 
apply to an order which is void ab initio.  Id. at 52, 541 
S.E.2d at 551.  The reason for that remedy is that an order 
which is void ab initio is a "nullity," and is without effect 
from the moment it comes into existence.  Kelley v. Stamos, 
285 Va. 68, 75, 737 S.E.2d 218, 221 (2013).  Accordingly, the 
Court of Appeals may not use a rule of court to supersede this 
principle of law that implicates constitutional principles of 
due process. 
 
As vital as this principle of law is, the Court of 
Appeals was correct in its holding that an appellate court 
must have acquired appellate jurisdiction itself before it can 
hear a challenge to a lower court or agency's actions, 
 
6 
including a challenge that a lower court's order is void ab 
initio.  Therefore, in order to be able to consider the merits 
of Amin's argument on this point, the Court of Appeals must 
have acquired appellate jurisdiction over the case. 
A litigant's failure to include any sufficient 
assignments of error in a petition for appeal can deprive this 
Court of active jurisdiction to consider the appeal.  Davis v. 
Commonwealth, 282 Va. 339, 339-40, 717 S.E.2d 796, 796-97 
(2011).  Similarly, in Smith v. Commonwealth, 281 Va. 464, 
468, 706 S.E.2d 889, 892 (2011), we held that "noncompliance 
with the rule involving the timely filing of a petition for 
appeal and including assignments of error in that petition 
deprive the appellate court of active jurisdiction over the 
appeal."  If Amin's petition for appeal had been untimely, had 
failed to include any assignments of error, or if the only 
assignment of error had been insufficient to comply with Rule 
5A:12, the Court of Appeals would have lacked active 
jurisdiction and would have been required to dismiss the 
petition for appeal. 
In this case, however, Amin's petition for appeal 
included one proper assignment of error.  All the necessary 
parties were present and the appeal had been timely filed and 
granted.  Consequently, the Court of Appeals had acquired 
active jurisdiction over Amin's appeal.  At that point, Amin 
 
7 
had the right to raise the issue whether his conviction order 
was void ab initio.  This issue may be advanced "directly or 
collaterally by all persons, anywhere, at any time, or in any 
manner," Singh, 261 Va. at 52, 541 S.E.2d at 551 (internal 
quotation marks omitted).  Accordingly, once the Court of 
Appeals acquired appellate jurisdiction over Amin's appeal, it 
was required to review the merits of Amin's argument that the 
conviction order he was appealing was void ab initio. 
III.  Conclusion 
 
We will reverse the Court of Appeal's holding that Rule 
5A:12 barred it from considering Amin's argument that the 
conviction order he was appealing was void ab initio.  We 
remand the matter to the Court of Appeals for a determination 
of this question on the merits. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Reversed and remanded.
 
JUSTICE POWELL, dissenting. 
The majority briefly discusses Amin’s assignment of error 
before concluding that the Court of Appeals erred in not 
reaching the merits of Amin’s claim that his conviction from 
Henrico County for possession of a concealed weapon was void 
ab initio.  I respectfully disagree with the majority that 
Amin’s assignment of error is sufficient to place his 
 
8 
substantive complaint before us.  Therefore, for the following 
reasons, I would dismiss his appeal. 
“When appeal is taken from a judgment of the Court of 
Appeals, only assignments of error relating to assignments of 
error presented in, and to actions taken by, the Court of 
Appeals may be included in the petition for appeal to this 
Court.”  Rule 5:17(c)(ii). 
 
The purpose of assignments of error 
is to point out the errors with reasonable 
certainty in order to direct this [C]ourt 
and opposing counsel to the points on 
which appellant intends to ask a reversal 
of the judgment, and to limit discussion 
to these points.  Without such 
assignments, appellee would be unable to 
prepare an effective brief in opposition 
to the granting of an appeal, to determine 
the material portions of the record to 
designate for printing, to assure himself 
of the correctness of the record while it 
is in the clerk’s office, or to file, in 
civil cases, assignments of cross-error.  
Harlow v. Commonwealth, 195 Va. 269, 271-
72, 77 S.E.2d 851, 853 (1953). 
 
Yeatts v. Murray, 249 Va. 285, 290, 455 S.E.2d 18, 21 (1995). 
 
Amin’s assignment of error is 
 
That the Court of Appeals erred in 
denying that the conviction is void as a 
matter of law as there exists no Henrico 
County Ordinance 22-2 incorporating 
Virginia Code Section 18.2-308 pursuant to 
the ends of justice exception of Rule 
5A:18 by applying Rule 5A:12.  Relief is 
requested here pursuant to Rule 5:25. 
 
 
9 
Contrary to Amin’s assignment of error, the Court of 
Appeals did not deny that his conviction was void.  To the 
contrary, the Court of Appeals did not address Amin’s argument 
on the merits.  Specifically, the Court of Appeals held that 
it lacked “appellate jurisdiction” to consider the issue on 
the merits because Amin failed to include an assignment of 
error in his petition to the Court of Appeals that addressed 
whether his conviction order was void ab initio.  Regardless 
of whether the Court of Appeals was correct, Amin’s assignment 
of error to this Court does not assign error to the Court of 
Appeals’ holding that it lacked jurisdiction but instead 
assigns error that incorporates his substantive argument that 
his conviction order was void ab initio.  Thus, I do not 
believe that Amin’s assignment of error is sufficient to 
comply with Rule 5:17(c)(ii) to properly bring him before this 
Court and I would dismiss his appeal.