COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Willis, Bray and Annunziata 

Argued at Alexandria, Virginia 

TIMOTHY J. WILSON 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 1959-01-4 JUDGE ROSEMARIE ANNUNZIATA 

 AUGUST 13,2002 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA 

Alfred D. Swersky, Judge 

 Barbara Fortner, Third Year Law Student 

(Heidi Meinzer, Assistant Public Defender, on 

briefs), for appellant. 

 Richard B. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney 

General (Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General, 

on brief), for appellee. 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not 

designated for publication.

 At a bench trial on July 17, 2001, the circuit court found 

Timothy Wilson guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him to 

ninety days in jail, with all but thirty days suspended for one 

year, conditioned on his uniform good behavior. Timothy Wilson 

appeals this decision on the ground that the underlying 

conviction for assault and battery was previously dismissed by 

the district court. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 

Background

 Wilson was convicted of assault and battery of a household 

member by the juvenile and domestic relations district court on 
March 10, 2000, sentenced to ninety days in jail with ninety 

days suspended on the condition that he be of good behavior and 

keep the peace. In addition, the court ordered that he "enter 

and complete programs as directed by the [Court Services Unit]." 

On June 9, 2000, the district court issued a show cause summons 

charging Wilson with violating his sentence because he failed to 

enter into and complete programs directed by the Court Services 

Unit. On June 26, Wilson signed an Adult Supervision Plan, 

which stated that his ninety-day sentence had been suspended 

based upon completion of a supervised plan. The plan required 

that he attend counseling sessions at the Counseling Center of 

Fairfax, obtain employment or attend school, not use illegal 

drugs and not leave the D.C. area without permission. 

 On July 17, 2000, Wilson appeared before a substitute 

district court judge on the show cause summons. The court 

dismissed the show cause and allowed Wilson additional time to 

enter and complete the Court Services Unit programs. However, 

the substitute judge put an "X" in the box next to "I Order the 

charge dismissed" and wrote "D.A. 7/17/00" next to it. He also 

wrote and crossed out "7/17/00 Dismissed – Def. Complied." 

 Following this extension, Wilson executed two more Adult 

Supervision Plans, each reflecting that he has received a ninety 

day suspended sentence requiring him to participate in a 

treatment program. Wilson did not comply. 

- 2 -
 On March 29, 2001, the district court entered a capias for 

Wilson's arrest to show cause why he should not be required to 

serve the sentence previously suspended on March 10, 2000, 

because he had failed to enter into and complete programs as 

directed by the Court Services Unit. Wilson was arrested on 

April 17, 2001. 

 At the show cause hearing on May 14, 2001, the district 

court found Wilson guilty of failing to comply and sentenced him 

to serve ninety days. Wilson appealed to the circuit court. 

 At the July 17, 2001 circuit court hearing, defense counsel 

moved to strike the evidence on the ground that the March 10, 

2000 order requiring Wilson to enter and complete programs had 

been dismissed in the district court on July 17, 2000 by the 

substitute judge. The circuit court dismissed the motion, found 

Wilson guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him to ninety 

days in jail, with all but thirty days suspended for one year, 

conditioned on his uniform good behavior. It is from this 

decision that Wilson appeals. 

Analysis

 Wilson contends that the trial court erred because the 

district court dismissed the underlying charge for assault and 

battery on July 17, 2000. The Commonwealth argues, however, 

that the district court lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the 

conviction and, assuming it had jurisdiction, the record does 

not establish that the substitute judge dismissed the assault 

- 3 -
and battery conviction. We agree that the district court lacked 

jurisdiction to modify the conviction and, therefore, affirm. 

 An order is void ab initio if entered 

by a court in the absence of jurisdiction of 

the subject matter or over the parties, if 

the character of the order is such that the 

court had no power to render it . . . . The 

[absence] of jurisdiction to enter an order 

under any of these circumstances renders the 

order a complete nullity and it may be 

"impeached directly or collaterally by all 

persons, anywhere, at any time, or in any 

manner." 

Singh v. Mooney, 261 Va. 48, 51-52, 541 S.E.2d 549, 551 (2001) 

(citations omitted). 

 A conviction may be "modified, vacated, or suspended for 

twenty-one days after the date of entry and no longer." Rule 

1.1. In addition, a person convicted in a district court may 

apply to reopen his case "[w]ithin sixty days from the date of 

conviction." Code § 16.1-133.1. 

 On March 10, 2000, the district court entered an order 

finding Wilson guilty of assault and battery of a household 

member and sentenced him to ninety days in jail, suspended, on 

the condition that he be of good behavior and keep the peace. 

In addition, the court ordered that he "enter and complete 

programs as directed by the [Court Services Unit]."1 On July 17, 

 1

 Wilson alleges that his March 10, 2000 conviction was not 

a final order. However, he advances no argument in support of 

this contention and cites no legal authority in support thereof. 

Therefore, we will not consider this argument. See Buchanan v. 

Buchanan, 14 Va. App. 53, 56, 415 S.E.2d 237, 239 (1992) 

("Statements unsupported by argument, authority, or citations to 

- 4 -
2000, 129 days later, the district court allegedly dismissed the 

charge. Under Virginia law, therefore, the district court no 

longer had jurisdiction over Wilson's case and could not dismiss 

his conviction. See Rule 1.1; Code § 16.1-133.1. Accordingly, 

we hold that the circuit court's judgment finding Wilson in 

contempt of court on July 17, 2001 was based on a valid 

conviction and, therefore, affirm. 

 Because we find that the district court did not have the 

authority to dismiss Wilson's underlying charge of assault and 

battery, we need not address whether the July 17, 2000 order was 

intended to dismiss the charge. See Singh, 261 Va. at 51, 541 

S.E.2d at 551 ("An order is void ab initio if entered by a court 

in the absence of jurisdiction of the subject matter or over the 

parties . . . ."). 

Affirmed.

 

the record do not merit appellate consideration. We will not 

search the record for errors in order to interpret appellant's 

contention and correct deficiencies in a brief."). 

- 5 -