COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Bray and Overton 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

ALFRED WILSON, S/K/A 

 ALFRED A. WILSON 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 0705-97-1 JUDGE JOSEPH E. BAKER 

 JANUARY 13, 1998 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH 

Frederick B. Lowe, Judge 

 Philip L. Russo, Jr. (Schafer & Russo, on 

brief), for appellant. 

 John H. McLees, Jr., Assistant Attorney 

General (Richard Cullen, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Alfred Wilson (appellant), sometimes known as Alfred 

A. Wilson, appeals from a judgment of the Circuit Court of the 

City of Virginia Beach (trial court) that approved a jury verdict 

convicting him for aggravated sexual battery. Appellant contends 

that his conviction must be reversed because, in the presence of 

the jury, the trial court inquired of appellant whether he was 

"going to testify." The Commonwealth argues that the appeal must 

be dismissed and the conviction affirmed because at trial 

appellant failed to object to the trial court's comment, move for 

a mistrial, or request a cautionary instruction. We agree and 

affirm the conviction. 

 The record discloses that at all times prior to the 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

beginning of the trial, appellant was represented by competent 

counsel. Before opening statements were made, appellant elected 

to proceed to trial without his court-appointed attorney. After 

being thoroughly advised of the "hazards" and requirements of 

representing himself, appellant proceeded pro se.1

 Appellant made an opening statement to the jury, 

cross-examined the Commonwealth's witnesses, and presented 

witnesses in his behalf. When the Commonwealth rested and 

appellant presented his witnesses, without testifying himself, 

the following exchange occurred: 

 [APPELLANT]: That's it, Your Honor. 

 THE COURT: Do you have any further 

 witnesses you intend to call? 

 [APPELLANT]: No, sir. 

 THE COURT: You're not going to testify? 

 [APPELLANT]: No, sir. 

 Appellant failed to object to the trial court's question, 

move for a mistrial, or request a cautionary instruction. 

 For an issue alleging trial court error to be considered on 

appeal, an objection must be timely made and the grounds stated 

with specificity. See Rule 5A:18. "To be timely, [the] 

objection must be made when the occasion arises--at the time the 

evidence is offered or the statement made." See Marlowe v. 

 

 1The record fully discloses that appellant made a clear, 

voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to be represented 

by counsel. 
- 3 - 

Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 619, 621, 347 S.E.2d 167, 168 (1986); 

see also Ingram v. Commonwealth, 1 Va. App. 335, 341, 338 S.E.2d 

657, 660 (1986). 

 Because appellant failed timely to object to the trial 

court's statement or inquiry, this appeal must be dismissed and 

appellant's conviction affirmed. The fact that appellant elected 

to proceed pro se after discharging his counsel does not relieve 

him of well-established rules of procedure and substantive law. 

See Church v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 208, 213, 335 S.E.2d 823, 826 

(1985) (citing Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 834 n.46 

(1975)). 

 We have examined the record and find no reason to apply the 

ends of justice exception to Rule 5A:18. Because appellant did 

not timely make a required objection or motion, we will not 

consider the issue he presents in this appeal. 

 Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

 Affirmed.