Title: Davis v. Commonwealth (ORDER)

State: virginia

Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court

Document:

VIRGINIA: 
 
 
In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court 
Building in the City of Richmond, on Friday, the 4th day of 
November, 2011. 
 
 
Alondo Davis,  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellant, 
 
 
against 
Record No. 102420  
 
 
 
Court of Appeals No. 1514-10-1 
 
Commonwealth of Virginia, 
 
 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
Upon an appeal from a judgment rendered by the 
 Court of Appeals of Virginia. 
 
Alondo Davis pled guilty to possession of a firearm after 
having been convicted of a violent felony within the previous ten 
years in violation of Code § 18.2-308.2(A). In his appeal to the 
Court of Appeals, Davis asserted that the trial court erred in 
accepting his guilty plea.  The Court of Appeals denied Davis’ 
appeal because a guilty plea waives any non-jurisdictional defects 
in the proceedings and Davis did not raise any jurisdictional 
defect in his appeal.  Davis v. Commonwealth, Record No. 1514-10-1 
(Dec. 1, 2010). 
In his appeal to this Court, Davis again assigns as error the 
trial court’s acceptance of his guilty plea but does not assign 
error to the Court of Appeals’ holding that his guilty plea waived 
non-jurisdictional defects.  The Rules of the Supreme Court of 
Virginia have long provided that in appeals from the Court of 
Appeals, this Court will consider “only assignments of error 
2 
 
relating to assignments of error presented in, and to actions taken 
by, the Court of Appeals . . . .”  Rule 5:17(c)(1)(ii).  Effective 
July 1, 2010, subparagraph (c)(1)(iii) was added to Rule 5:17.  
That amendment provides that an assignment of error that does not 
address a finding or ruling of a “[t]ribunal from which an appeal 
is taken” is insufficient and that “[i]f the assignments of error 
are insufficient, the petition for appeal shall be dismissed.”  
Rule 5:17(c)(1)(iii).  By prescribing dismissal of the appeal, this 
amendment established that the inclusion of sufficient assignments 
of error is a mandatory procedural requirement and that the failure 
to comply with this requirement deprives this Court of its active 
jurisdiction to consider the appeal.  Smith v. Commonwealth, 281 
Va. 464, 467-68, 706 S.E.2d 889, 891-92 (2011); Jay v. 
Commonwealth, 275 Va. 510, 518-19, 659 S.E.2d 311, 315-16 (2008). 
Accordingly, because Davis’ sole assignment of error in this 
appeal does not address any finding or ruling of the Court of 
Appeals, the appeal is dismissed.  Rule 5:17(c)(1)(iii). 
This order shall be published in the Virginia Reports and 
shall be certified to the Court of Appeals of Virginia and to the 
Circuit Court of the City of Suffolk. 
 
Justice Powell took no part in the consideration of this 
case.¶ 
 
 
 
 
 
A Copy, 
3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Teste: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Patricia L. Harrington, Clerk