Title: Mwangi v. Commonwealth

State: virginia

Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court

Document:

PRESENT: Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons and 
Goodwyn, JJ., and Stephenson, S.J. 
 
FREDERICK C. MWANGI 
 
 
 
OPINION BY 
v.  Record No. 081065   SENIOR JUSTICE ROSCOE B. STEPHENSON, JR.  
 
 
 
February 27, 2009 
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 
 
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 
 
 
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the Court 
of Appeals erred in affirming a conviction for driving under the 
influence, third offense, "where the Commonwealth's proof of 
recidivism relies on a purported order from a general district 
court which was never endorsed by a judge." 
 
Frederick C. Mwangi was tried without a jury in the Circuit 
Court of the City of Alexandria.  The court found him guilty of 
driving under the influence (DUI), in violation of Code § 18.2-
266.  Mwangi, found to have been convicted of DUI twice before 
within a five-year period, was sentenced, in accordance with 
Code § 18.2-270(C)(1), to two years in prison with all but six 
months suspended. 
 
Mwangi appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals of 
Virginia.  The Court of Appeals affirmed Mwangi's conviction, 
Mwangi v. Commonwealth, 51 Va. App. 498, 507, 659 S.E.2d 519, 
524 (2008), and we awarded him this appeal. 
 
At trial, the Commonwealth sought to simultaneously 
introduce three exhibits as evidence of Mwangi's prior DUI 
convictions, and the trial court admitted the exhibits over 
Mwangi's objections.  One of those exhibits, Exhibit 1, is a 
transcript from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) showing 
that Mwangi had been convicted of DUI in the General District 
Court of the County of Arlington on April 22, 2005, as well as a 
purported DUI conviction in the City of Alexandria.  Another of 
those exhibits, Exhibit 3, is a summons that purports to show 
that Mwangi had been convicted of DUI in the Alexandria General 
District Court.  The summons indicates that the alleged offense 
occurred on January 21, 2005, and that Mwangi appeared in the 
general district court, represented by counsel, on July 15, 
2005.  The summons also indicates that Mwangi entered a guilty 
plea, was tried and found guilty as charged, and was fined and 
sentenced to a jail term.  The summons, however, is not signed 
by a judge. 
 
Mwangi contends that the trial court erred in convicting 
him of DUI, third offense, because Exhibit 3, the purported DUI 
conviction order, is not endorsed by a judge and, thus, "is no 
order at all."  The Commonwealth contends that, given the 
information on the summons and the fact that the general 
district court clerk forwarded an abstract of the conviction to 
the DMV, there was sufficient evidence to prove the conviction 
despite the absence of the judge's signature on the summons. 
 
2
 
The Commonwealth has the burden of proving all elements of 
a crime, including prior convictions, beyond a reasonable doubt.  
Palmer v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 203, 207, 609 S.E.2d 308, 310 
(2005).  In a court-not-of-record, a judge's signature proves 
the rendition of a judgment.  We have stated that "[t]he 
purported disposition on the back of [a] warrant is not an order 
because it is not signed by the judge."  Moreau v. Fuller, 276 
Va. 127, 137, 661 S.E.2d 841, 847 (2008). 
 
We conclude that the trial court erred in holding that the 
evidence was sufficient to prove the prior DUI conviction in 
Alexandria, which is an element of the felony offense described 
in Code § 18.2-270(C)(1).  While the DMV transcript was 
admissible in evidence to prove prior convictions, the 
Commonwealth's Exhibit 3 rebutted the evidence as to the 
Alexandria conviction.  The Commonwealth, therefore, failed to 
prove that Mwangi had been twice before convicted of DUI.  It 
follows, then, that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming 
Mwangi's conviction. 
 
Accordingly, we will reverse the judgment of the Court of 
Appeals, vacate the trial court's judgment, and remand the case 
to the Court of Appeals with direction that the Court of Appeals 
remand the case to the trial court for a new trial on the 
lesser-included misdemeanor charge if the Commonwealth be so 
advised. 
 
3
Reversed and remanded. 
 
4