Title: Palmer v. Commonwealth

State: virginia

Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court

Document:

PRESENT: All the Justices 
 
GEORGE DANIEL PALMER 
 
v.  Record No. 040928   OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  March 3, 2005 
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 
 
 
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 
 
 
In this appeal, the defendant challenges his two 
convictions for possession of a firearm when under the age of 29 
and after having been convicted of a delinquent act as a 
juvenile that would have been a felony if committed by an adult.  
Code § 18.2-308.2.  The issue before us is whether the evidence 
was sufficient to prove an element of the offense, namely, the 
defendant’s conviction as a juvenile of a delinquent act 
felonious in nature. 
 
George Daniel Palmer was indicted by a grand jury on 
charges including malicious wounding, in violation of Code 
§ 18.2-51, use of a firearm in the commission of malicious 
wounding, in violation of Code § 18.2-53.1, and shooting at an 
occupied dwelling, in violation of Code § 18.2-279.  He also was 
indicted on two charges of possession of a firearm when he was 
under the age of 29, after having been convicted of a delinquent 
act that would have been a felony if committed by an adult, in 
violation of Code § 18.2-308.2.  In a bench trial, the Circuit 
Court of Halifax County found Palmer guilty of all the above 
charges.  The circuit court sentenced Palmer to concurrent 
sentences of five years’ imprisonment for the two firearm 
possession convictions under Code § 18.2-308.2.1
 
Palmer filed a petition for appeal to the Court of Appeals 
challenging, among other things, the circuit court’s 
determination that he earlier was convicted of a delinquent act 
felonious in nature.2  The Court of Appeals refused Palmer’s 
petition.  We awarded Palmer an appeal limited to this issue. 
The evidence presented by the Commonwealth purporting to 
prove that Palmer previously was convicted of a delinquent act 
felonious in nature consisted of four petitions and accompanying 
disposition orders from the Halifax County Juvenile and Domestic 
Relations District Court (the juvenile and domestic relations 
district court).  Two of the petitions alleged that Palmer 
committed the delinquent act of grand larceny, in violation of 
Code § 18.2-95.  The other two petitions alleged that Palmer 
committed the delinquent act of burglary with the intent to 
commit larceny, in violation of Code § 18.2-91. 
The juvenile and domestic relations district court records 
do not contain any orders providing an adjudication of the four 
charges.  However, the “disposition order” entered for each 
                     
1 Palmer does not appeal his other convictions. 
 
2
charge ordered Palmer: (1) to pay restitution to the victim in 
an amount to be determined; and (2) to be committed to jail for 
12 months, six months of which were suspended subject to two 
years of good behavior.  The juvenile and domestic relations 
district court set the jail sentences to run concurrently.  
Palmer was 18 years old when he was sentenced for these 
delinquent acts. 
Palmer objected in his circuit court trial to the admission 
of the juvenile and domestic relations district court petitions 
and disposition orders.  He also made a motion to strike the 
evidence at the end of the Commonwealth’s case and at the 
conclusion of all the evidence.  He argued that these court 
records did not establish a prior conviction of a delinquent act 
felonious in nature.  The circuit court denied Palmer’s motions 
to strike and found him guilty of the charges of possession of a 
firearm in violation of Code § 18.2-308.2. 
In explaining its decision, the circuit court acknowledged 
that the form used by the juvenile and domestic relations 
district court “is not good,” but found that there was “no 
question” that Palmer had been convicted of the delinquent acts 
as charged.  The court reasoned that Palmer could only have been 
                                                                  
2 Palmer’s first petition for appeal to the Court of Appeals 
was dismissed for failure to file a transcript.  He was awarded 
a belated appeal to the Court of Appeals pursuant to a petition 
for a writ of habeas corpus.  
 
3
committed to jail for the time period set forth in the court 
documents if he had been convicted of delinquent acts that would 
have been a felony if committed by an adult. 
On appeal to this Court, Palmer argues that the circuit 
court erred in concluding that the Commonwealth proved beyond a 
reasonable doubt that he had been convicted as a juvenile of a 
delinquent act felonious in nature.  He asserts that the 
juvenile and domestic relations district court records are 
insufficient to establish this element of the present offenses 
because the records do not show that he was convicted of any 
particular delinquent act.  Palmer contends that because he was 
18 years old when he was sentenced by the juvenile and domestic 
relations district court, he could have received the stated jail 
sentences for delinquent acts that would have been misdemeanor 
offenses if committed by an adult. 
In response, the Commonwealth argues that the juvenile and 
domestic relations district court records “contain a ‘verdict’ 
of sorts, in that the court did not dismiss the case” and the 
disposition orders reflect concurrent jail sentences of 12 
months.  The Commonwealth further maintains that there are no 
lesser-included offenses of the crime of statutory burglary and, 
therefore, that the juvenile and domestic relations district 
court must have convicted Palmer of the delinquent acts charged 
 
4
in the burglary petitions.  We disagree with the Commonwealth’s 
arguments. 
When the fact of a prior conviction is an element of a 
charged offense, the burden is on the Commonwealth to prove that 
prior conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.  See Moore v. 
Commonwealth, 254 Va. 184, 186, 491 S.E.2d 739, 740 (1997); 
Dowdy v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 114, 116, 255 S.E.2d 506, 508 
(1979); McBride v. Commonwealth, 24 Va. App. 30, 33, 480 S.E.2d 
126, 127 (1997); Essex v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 168, 171-72, 
442 S.E.2d 707, 709-10 (1994).  As provided by statute, a 
judgment order must reflect, among other things, the plea of the 
defendant, the verdict or findings of the fact finder, and the 
adjudication and sentence of the court.  Code § 19.2-307.  The 
mere notation of a sentence, although suggestive of a 
conviction, does not establish the fact or nature of any 
conviction.  See McBride, 24 Va. App. at 35, 480 S.E.2d at 128; 
Bellinger v. Commonwealth, 23 Va. App. 471, 475, 477 S.E.2d 779, 
780-81 (1996). 
A court may not engage in conjecture or surmise in 
determining the offense for which a defendant was convicted.  
Thus, when the Commonwealth seeks to prove a prior conviction as 
an element of a crime by presenting an order entered in that 
prior case, the order must show that a judgment of conviction 
was entered in adjudication of the charge.  See Smith v. 
 
5
Commonwealth, 134 Va. 589, 598, 113 S.E. 707, 710 (1922); 
Bellinger, 23 Va. App. at 474-75, 477 S.E.2d at 780-81; cf. 
Ramdass v. Commonwealth, 248 Va. 518, 520-21, 450 S.E.2d 360, 
361 (1994) (verdict on which judgment was not entered is not a 
conviction for purpose of parole eligibility). 
The rationale underlying these principles is plain.  First, 
a court’s orders are presumed to accurately reflect what 
actually transpired and nothing more.  McMillion v. Dryvit Sys., 
262 Va. 463, 469, 552 S.E.2d 364, 367 (2001); Waterfront Marine 
Constr. v. North End 49ers, 251 Va. 417, 427 n.2, 468 S.E.2d 
894, 900 n.2 (1996); Stamper v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 260, 280-
81, 257 S.E.2d 808, 822 (1979); McBride, 24 Va. App. at 35, 480 
S.E.2d at 128.  Second, as a practical matter, a defendant 
charged with felonious conduct may be convicted of a lesser-
included offense, or the original charge may be reduced upon the 
defendant’s agreement to plead guilty to the reduced charge. 
Applying these principles and observations to the present 
case, we conclude that the juvenile and domestic relations 
district court records do not establish the fact or nature of 
Palmer’s adjudication.  For example, we do not know if Palmer 
agreed to plead guilty to four offenses that would have been 
 
6
misdemeanors, rather than felonies, if committed by an adult.3  
Palmer was 18 years old at the time he was sentenced and, thus, 
the juvenile and domestic relations district court was permitted 
to sentence him to jail for delinquent acts that would have been 
a misdemeanor if committed by an adult for a period not to 
exceed 12 months for a single offense or multiple offenses.  See 
Code § 16.1-284.  As stated above, the record shows that Palmer 
received four concurrent jail sentences of 12 months, with six 
months of each sentence suspended, sentences within the limits 
allowed by Code § 16.1-284. 
Because we are unable to determine the nature of the 
delinquent acts for which Palmer was sentenced by the juvenile 
and domestic relations district court, we hold that the 
Commonwealth did not present sufficient evidence in the circuit 
court to establish that Palmer previously had been convicted of 
a delinquent act that would have been a felony if committed by 
an adult.  Accordingly, the evidence is insufficient to support 
his convictions in the circuit court for possession of a firearm 
in violation of Code § 18.2-308.2. 
For these reasons, we will reverse the Court of Appeals' 
judgment with respect to both charges under Code § 18.2-308.2 
                     
3 Because Palmer could have agreed to plead guilty to four 
delinquent acts that would have been misdemeanors if committed 
by an adult, we need not discuss whether there were lesser-
 
7
and enter final judgment dismissing Counts IV and V of the 
indictment. 
Reversed and final judgment.
                                                                  
included offenses of the charged acts for which he could have 
been found guilty. 
 
8