Case Title: Harvey v. Warden (order)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 022291

State: virginia

Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Date: 2004-06-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
VIRGINIA: 
 
 
In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court 
Building in the City of Richmond on Thursday, the 10th day of June, 
2004. 
 
James Harvey, No. 177879, 
 
 
 
 
Petitioner, 
 
 against        Record No. 022291 
 
Warden of the Coffeewood 
 Correctional Center, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Respondent. 
 
Upon a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus 
 
James Harvey was convicted of rape and sodomy in the Circuit 
Court of Fairfax County and by final order dated April 30, 1990, was 
sentenced to serve 25 years in the penitentiary for the rape and 15 
years for the sodomy.  In January 2002, after exhausting his 
opportunities for state and federal direct and collateral review of 
his convictions, Harvey filed a motion in the Circuit Court of 
Fairfax County, pursuant to Code § 19.2-327.1, seeking post-trial 
scientific analysis of certain evidence.  On March 1, 2002, the 
circuit court ordered the Division of Forensic Science to test the 
DNA from the human biological evidence obtained from Harvey, another 
co-defendant, and the victim.  On May 15, 2002, after testing was 
completed, the Division of Forensic Science filed a certificate of 
analysis stating that Harvey could not be eliminated as a possible 
contributor to the sperm fractions found on the victim. 
 
On September 24, 2002, Harvey filed a petition for a writ of 
habeas corpus in this Court, challenging the validity of the 
certificate of analysis and related test results.  We conclude that 
this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider the petition.  See 
Gaston v. Commonwealth, 266 Va. 175, 585 S.E.2d 597 (2003). 
 
2
 
Subsection G of Code § 19.2-327.1 expressly states, in 
pertinent part, that "[a]n action under this section . . . shall not 
form the basis for relief in any habeas corpus proceeding or any 
other appeal."  When a statute is clear and unambiguous, a court 
must consider the words used in the statute to ascertain its meaning 
and intent.  Gaston, 266 Va. at 176, 585 S.E.2d at 596; Yamaha Motor 
Corp. v. Quillian, 264 Va. 656, 665, 571 S.E.2d 122, 126 (2002); 
Harrison & Bates, Inc. v. Featherstone Assocs., 253 Va. 364, 368, 
484 S.E.2d 883, 885 (1997).  The language used in Code § 19.2-
327.1(G) is clear and unambiguous and means that circuit court 
proceedings under Code § 19.2-327.1 are not subject to review in 
this Court, whether by direct appeal or a petition for a writ of 
habeas corpus.  Consequently, Harvey's petition is dismissed for 
lack of jurisdiction, the rule is discharged, and the respondent 
shall recover of the petitioner his costs expended about his defense 
herein. 
 
This order shall be published in the Virginia Reports. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A Copy, 
 
 
 
 
 
                    
 
Teste: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Patricia H. Krueger, Clerk