Title: Wilkins v. Commonwealth

State: virginia

Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court

Document:

Wilkins v. Commonwealth 
 
253 Va. 156 (1997) 
_______________________________________________________________ 
 
 
VIRGINIA:
 
 
In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court 
Building in the City of Richmond, on Friday, the 28th day of 
February, 1997. 
 
 
Donald L. Wilkins, 
Appellant, 
 
   against   Record No. 961235 
 
 
 
Court of Appeals No. 1242-95-4 
 
Commonwealth of Virginia, 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
 
Upon an appeal from a judgment rendered by the Court 
of Appeals of Virginia on the 4th day of December, 1995. 
 
 
 
Upon consideration of the record, the briefs, and argument of 
counsel, the Court is of opinion that no error exists in the 
judgment of the Court of Appeals of Virginia. 
 
On March 31, 1995, a jury in the Circuit Court for the County 
of Fauquier returned a verdict convicting Donald L. Wilkins of 
attempted possession of phencyclidine, a controlled substance, in 
violation of Code § 18.2-257.  As appears from an order entered by 
the trial court, "[w]hereupon the jurors received further evidence 
and were instructed by the Court as to punishment and heard evidence 
and argument of counsel and were sent back to their room to consider 
their verdict as to punishment."  Authorized by the statute to 
impose a sentence upon conviction of "not less than one nor more 
than ten years," the jury returned its second verdict fixing the 
penalty at five years in the penitentiary.  Upon consideration of 
the report of a probation officer, the trial court confirmed the two 
verdicts and entered final judgment on May 30, 1995. 
 
In the course of argument made at the penalty phase of the 
trial, the prosecutor told the jurors that "you have an opportunity 
as the conscience of this community to deal with this person" and 
that "in considering what is the appropriate verdict, you can indeed 
send the message to Mr. Wilkins . . . [and] to people similarly 
situated to Mr. Wilkins that we will not tolerate the sale and 
purchase of drugs in this county."  Wilkins objected to those 
statements and, in a petition for appeal addressed to the Court of 
Appeals of Virginia, challenged the trial court's ruling denying his 
motion for a mistrial. 
 
Holding that "the argument was proper," the Court of Appeals of 
Virginia denied the petition, and this Court awarded Wilkins an 
appeal limited to consideration of that holding. 
 
Wilkins notes on brief that "[n]othing should be done or 
permitted to . . . obscure the minds of the jurors on the question 
of whether or not [the accused] is guilty of the offense charged."  
That rule is fully supported by the precedents.  This Court, upon 
finding a manifest probability that a deterrence argument by a 
prosecutor had been a contributing cause of the defendant's 
conviction, has consistently reversed the judgment and remanded the 
case to the trial court.  See e.g., Kitze v. Commonwealth, 246 Va. 
283, 435 S.E.2d 583 (1993); Hutchins v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 17, 
255 S.E.2d 459 (1979). 
 
As an element of its rationale in Hutchins, this Court 
emphasized the need to avoid confusion between "the use of 
punishment and conviction for deterrent purposes," 220 Va. at 20-21, 
255 S.E.2d at 461, and, citing Hutchins in Payne v. Commonwealth, 
233 Va. 460, 468, 357 S.E.2d 500, 505, cert. denied, 484 U.S. 933 
(1987), the Court explained that "while considerations of deterrence 
should not be the basis for a finding of guilt of the offense, such 
considerations may be argued in connection with the punishment to be 
assessed for the crime." 
 
Here, the deterrence argument in issue was made in the penalty 
phase of the bifurcated trial.  The Court finds no merit in the 
assignment of error, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals of 
Virginia is affirmed. 
 
Justices Stephenson and Koontz took no part in the 
consideration or disposition of this appeal. 
 
The defendant will pay to the Commonwealth thirty dollars in 
damages. 
 
It is ordered that the said circuit court allow counsel for the 
appellant a fee of $725 for services rendered the appellant on this 
appeal, in addition to counsel's costs and necessary direct out-of-
pocket expenses. 
 
The Commonwealth shall recover of the appellant the amount paid 
court-appointed counsel to represent him in this proceeding, 
counsel's costs and necessary direct out-of-pocket expenses, and the 
fees and costs to be assessed by the clerk of this Court and the 
clerks of the courts below. 
 
This order shall be certified to the Court of Appeals of 
Virginia and the Circuit Court of the County of Fauquier and shall 
be published in the Virginia Reports. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A Copy, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Teste: 
 
 
 
 
David B. Beach, Clerk 
 
 
 
 
Costs due the Commonwealth 
 by appellant in Supreme 
 Court of Virginia: 
 
Attorney's fee 
 $925.00 plus costs and expenses