Title: Gaston v. Commonwealth

State: virginia

Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court

Document:

PRESENT: Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Agee, 
JJ., and Stephenson, S.J. 
 
JOHN FITZGERALD GASTON 
 
 
 
PER CURIAM 
v.  Record No. 022303 
 
 
 
September 12, 2003 
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 
 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK 
Marc Jacobson, Judge 
 
 
John Fitzgerald Gaston filed a motion in the Circuit Court 
of the City of Norfolk, pursuant to Code § 19.2-327.1, seeking 
post-trial scientific analysis of certain evidence.  Following a 
hearing, the circuit court denied Gaston's motion.  On February 
5, 2003, we awarded Gaston this appeal and also directed the 
parties to brief the issue "whether this Court has jurisdiction 
to hear this appeal."  We conclude that this Court does not have 
jurisdiction. 
 
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 may look only to the words used in the statute to 
ascertain its meaning and intent.  Yamaha Motor Corp. v. 
Quillian, 264 Va. 656, 665, 571 S.E.2d 122, 126 (2002); Harrison 
& Bates, Inc. v. Featherstone Assoc., 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 a circuit 
court's ruling under Code § 19.2-327.1 is unappealable.  
Consequently, we will dismiss Gaston's appeal for want of 
jurisdiction. 
Appeal dismissed. 
 
2