COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: J u d g e s B e a l e s

, H u f f a n d M a l v e a

u x

Argued at A l e x a n d r

i a

, V i r g i n i a

S H A V O N N E D O M I N I Q U E ISRAEL , S/ K /A

SHAVONNE ISR AEL

MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY

v. Re cord No. 1 1 9 5

- 2 1

- 4 J U D G E R A N D O L P H A

. B E A L E S

JUNE 28, 2022

C O M M O N W E A L T H O F V I R G I N I A

FRO M THE CIRCUI T COURT OF A R L I N G T O N C O U N T Y

D a n i e l S

. F i o r e

, I I , Judge

R o b e r t M a r s h a l l

, A s s i s t a n t P u b l i c D e f

e n d e r

, for appellant.

L i n d s a y M

. B r o o k e r

, A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a

l ( J a s o n S

. M i y a

r e s

, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l

, o n b r

i e f )

, f or appellee.

S h a v o n n e D o m i n i q u e Israel a p p e a l s f r o m a n o r d e r o f t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t o f A r l i n g t o n C o u n t

y

d i s m i s s i n g h e r a

p p e a l f r o m A r l i n g t o n C o u n t y G e n e r a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t

. O n a p p e a l

, Israel c o n t e n d s

th a t th e c i r c u i t c o u r

t e r r e d i n d i s m i s s i n g h e r “ a

p p e a l f o r l a c k o f s u b

j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t

i o n ” b e c a u s e

s h e n o t e d h e r a

p p e a l “ w i t

h i n th e 1 0

- d a y w i n d o w r e q u i r e d b y V i r g i n i a C o d e § 1 6

. 1

- 1 3 2

. ” S h e a l s o

c o n t e n d s th a

t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r

t v i o l a t e d “ her rights under the Due Process Clause of the 14 th

Amendment ” w h e n i t d e n i e d h e r r e q u e s t f o r a n e v i d e n t i a

r y h e a r i n g

.

I. B A C K G R O U N D

O n a p p e a l

, a s t h e S u p r e m e C o u r

t h a s i n s t r u c t e d

, w e v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e i n “ the light most

favorable to the Commonwealth, as we must since it was the prevailing party in the t r i a l c o u r t [

. ] ”

R i n e r v

. C

o m m o n w e a l t

h

, 268 Va. 296

, 3 3 0 ( 2 0 0 4 )

. O n October 2 6

, 2 0 2 0

, S h a v o n n e D o m i n i q u e

* Purs uant to Code § 17.1

- 413, this opinion is not designated for publication. UNPUBLISHED- 2

-

Israel

, w h o r e p r e s e n t e d h e r s e l f b e f o r e the Arlington C o u n t y G e n e r a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t

, w a s c o n v i c t e d

o f p o s s e s s i o n o f a c o u n t e r f e i t t e m p o r a

r y v e h i c l e t a g

. T h e g e n e r a l dis tri c t c o u r t i mp o s e d a $ 1 0 0 f

i n e

.

T e n d a y s l a t e r

, o n N o v e m b e r 5

, 2 0 2 0

, Israel f

i l e d a m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r w i t

h th e A r l i n g t o n

C o u n t y G e n e r a

l D i s t r i c t C o u r t c l e r k ’ s o f f i c e

. I n t h a

t m o t i o n

, Israel a l l e g e d t h a

t th e r e w e r e s e v e r a l

i s s u e s o r p r o b l e m s w i t

h h e r c o n v i c t

i o n a n d s t a t e d

, “ I w o u l d l i k e a f a i r t r i a l i f t h i s c a s e i s n o t

r e c o n s i d e r e d

. ” 1 Israel th e n r e t u r n e d o n th e f o l l o w i n g d a y

, N o v e m

b e r 6

, 2 0 2 0

, t o f

i l e a n o t i c e o f

a p p e a l t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r

t

.

S u b s e q u e n t

l y

, t h e A r l i n g t o n C o u n t

y C i r c u i t C o u r

t a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l t o r e p r e s e n t Israel a n d

s c h e d u l e d Israel ’ s m a t

t e r f o r t r i a l o n A u g u s t 5

, 2 0 2 1

. O n A u g u s t 2

, 2 0 2 1

, th e C o m m o n w e a l th f i l e d

a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s Israel ’ s a

p p e a l

. T h e C o m m o n w e a l t h a r g u e d t h a t

, b e c a u s e Israel h a d n o t f

i l e d

h e r n o t i c e o f a p p e a l u n t i l N o v e m

b e r 6

, 2 0 2 0 ( e l e v e n d a y s a f t e r h e r c o n v i c t

i o n )

, s h e h a d n o t t i m e l y

a p p e a l e d h e r c o n v i c t i o n

, a

n d

, t h e r e f o r e

, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r

t l a c k e d jurisdiction t o h e a r h e r a p p e a l

. S e e

C o d e § 1 6

. 1

- 1 3 2 ( g i v i n g a d e f e n d a n t th e r

i g h t t o a p p e a l h e r m i s d e m e a n o r c o n v i c t i o n t o t h e c i r c u i t

c o u r t w i th i n t e n d a y s o f h e r c o n v i c t i o n )

.

A t a h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e c i rc u i t c o u r

t

, Israel ’ s counsel o p p o s e d t h e C o m m o n w e a l th ’ s m o t i o n

t o d i s m i s s

. I n d o i n g s o

, I s r a e l ’ s c o u n s e l a r g u e d t h a t Isra el a c tu a l l y n o t e d h e r a p p e a l o n N o v e m

b e r 5

,

2 0 2 0

, b e c a

u s e A r l i n g t o n C o u n t y G e n e r a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t J u d g e D a n i e l L o p e z ’ s s i g n a t u r e a p p e a r s

n e x t t o t h e h a n d w r

i t t e n w o r d s “ A p p e a

l N o t e d ” o n t

h e b o t t o m o f t h e m o t

i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r t

h a t Israel

h a d f i l e d i n g e n e r a l d i s t

r i c t c o u r t w i t h i n t h e t e n

- d a y t i m e p e r i o d t o n o t e a n a

p p e a l f r o m h e r

c o n v i c t i o n u n d e r C o d e § 1 6

. 1

- 1 3 2

.

1 T here is nothing in the record demonstrating that the m otion t o r econs i de r wa s ever

doc ket ed , heard, or ruled upo n.- 3

-

B o th Israel ’ s c o u n s e l and t h e C o m m o n w e a l th p r o f

f e r e d a v e r s i o n o f e v e n t s a

b o u t w h a t m a y

h a v e h a p p e n e d a t th e g e n e r a l d i s t

r i c t c o u r t c l e r k ’ s o f f i c e i n th e m i n u t e s l e a d i n g u p t o Israel f i l i n g h e r

m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r o n N o v e m b e r 5

, 2 0 2 0

. Israel ’ s c o u n s e l p r o f f e r e d th a t J u d g e L o p e z “ a c c e p t e d

th e f a c t th a t s h e [ I s r a e l ] h a d n o t e d t h e a p p e a l ” o n N o v e m

b e r 5

, 2 0 2 0

, a f

t e r I s r a e l v e r

b a l l y d i s c u s s e d

i t w i th th e c l e r

k ’ s o f f i c e

. I n c o n t

r a s t

, th e C o m m o n w e a l t h p r o f f e r e d th a t

, b a s e d u p o n t h e p r o c e d u r e s

e m p l o y e d b y t

h e c l e r k ’ s o f f i c e

, th e m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r w o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n s e n t t o o r r e v i e w e d b y

a j u d g e i n t h e A r

l i n g t o n C o u n t y G e n e r a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t u n t i l N o v e m

b e r 6

, 2 0 2 0

.

I srael ’ s counsel d i d n o t o b j e c t t o t h e C o m m o n w e a l t

h ’ s p r o f f e r

. I n s t e a d

, h e r e s p o n d e d

, “ I

w o u l d sub mit t

h a t i f t h i s i s a s i t u a t i o n w h e r e w e ’ r e g o i n g t o h a v e t o i n t e r r o g a t e b o th g e n e r a

l l y t h e

procedures i n t

h e c l e r k ’ s o f f i c e i n a d d i t i o n t o t

h e p r o c e d u r e s t

h a t w e r e e m

p l o y e d o n th e d a

y i n

q u e s t i o n

, t h i s i s a si tuat

ion t h a t r e q u i r e s a n e v i d e n t i a

r y h e a r i n g

. ” However

, Israe l ’ s counsel

i n d i c a t e d t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t t

h a t h e d i d n o t t

h i n k a n e v i d e n t i a

r y hearing w a s n e c e s s a

r y t o r e s o l v e

th e m o t i o n b e c a

u s e h e t h o u g h t t h a t th e c i r c u i t c o u r

t s h o u l d r e l y o n th e d o c u m e n t s

— t h e n o t i c e o f

a p p e a l a n d th e m o t

i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r

— t h a t w e r e b e fore t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t

. Israel ’ s c o u n s e l th e n

r e q u e s t e d th a t t

h e c i r c u i t c o u r

t d e n y t h e C o m m o n w e a l t h ’ s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s “ i n t h e a b s e n c e o f a n

e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g

. ”

T h e c i r c u i t c o u r

t c o n c l u d e d th a

t “ th e d o c u m e n t s th e m s e l v e s r e a l l y a n s w e r e d t h e q u e s t i o n ”

a n d th a t a n e v i d e n t i a

r y h e a r i n g

, th e r e f

o r e

, w a s n o t n e c e s s a

r y

. T h e c i r c u i t c o u r

t f o u n d t h a t

, b e c a u s e

th e n o t a t i o n o f a p p e a l a p p e a r s o n t h e b o t t o m o f Israel ’ s m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r a n d n o t o n t h e w a r r a n t

,

Israel h a d a

p p e a l e d h e r m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r

— a s o p p o s e d t o h e r c o n v i c t i o n

. T h e c i r c u i t c o u r

t h e l d

th a t “ a p p e a l i n g a m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r

. . . d o e s n o t b r i n g a b o u t th e C o u r

t ’ s j u r i s d i c t i o n ” a n d

d i s m i s s e d t

h e c a s e

. I s r a e l ’ s c o u n s e l t h e n r e s p o n d e d

, “ T h a n k y o u

, Y o u r H o n o r

. ”- 4

-

O n A u g u s t 1 0

, 2 0 2 1

, th e c i r c u i t c o u r t e n t e r e d a

n o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g Israel ’ s a p p e a l f o r l a c k o f

j u r i s d i c t i o n

. Israel d i d n o t f

i l e a m o t i o n f

o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n t

h e c i r c u i t c o u r

t

. S h e n o w a

p p e a l s t o

th i s C o u r t

.

II. A N A L Y S I S

Israel r a i s e s t w o a s s i g n m e n t s o f e r r o r o n a p p e a l

. F i r s t

, s h e c o n t e n d s th a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r

t

“ e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g t

h e C o m m o n w e a

l th ’ s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s Israel ’ s m i s d e m e a n o r a p p e a l f o r l a c k o f

s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n b e c a

u s e th e d o c u m e n t s f

i l e d t o th e A r l i n g t o n C o u n t y C i r c u i t C o u r

t f r o m

th e A r l i n g t o n C o u n t y G e n e r a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n c l u d e d a document f

i l e d within th e 1 0

- d a

y w i n d o w

r e q u i r e d b y V i r g i n i a C o d e § 1 6

. 1

- 1 3 2

. ” S e c o n d

, s h e c o n t e n d s t h a t th e c i r c u i t c o u r

t “ e r r e d b y

d e n y i n g Israel ’ s r e q u e s t f

o r a n e v i d e n t

i a r y h e a r i n g i n v i o l a t

i o n o f h e r r

i g h t s u n d e r th e D u e P r o c e s s

C l a u s e o f t h e 1 4 t h A m e n d m e n t

. ”

A. A s s i g n m e n t o f E r r o r I

O n a p p e a l

, Israel c o n t e n d s t h a

t t h e w o r d s “ A p p e a l N o t e d ” t h a t a p p e a r n e x t t o J u d g e L o p e z ’ s

s i g n a t u r e o n th e b o t

t o m o f t h e m o t

i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r

, w h i c h w a s f i l e d o n N o v e m

b e r 5

, 2 0 2 0

, s h o w

th a t s h e a p p e a l e d h e r c o n v i c t i o n w i th i n t h e t e n

- d a y t i m e p e r i o d t o a p p e a l a c o n v i c t

i o n u n d e r C o d e

§ 1 6

. 1

- 1 3 2

. T h e C o m m o n w e a l th

, h o w e v e r

, c o n t e n d s th a t I s r a e l d i d n o t p r e s e r v e t h i s a s s i g n m e n t o f

e r r o r f o r r e v i e w o n a

p p e a l u n d e r R u l e 5 A : 1 8 b e c a

u s e s h e d i d n o t o b

j e c t w h e n th e c i r c u i t c o u r

t b a s e d

i t s r u l i n g u p o n g r o u n d s th a t w e r e n o t r a i s e d a t t h e h e a r i n g

.

R u l e 5 A : 1 8 p r o v i d e s

, “ No ruling of the trial court or t h e Virginia W or kers ’ Compensation

Comm ission will be considered as a basis for reve rsal unless an objection was stated with

reasonable certainty at the ti me of the ruling, except for good cause sho wn or to enable this Court to

attain the en ds of justice

. ” “ N ot just a n y objection will do. It must be both specific and timely

— so

that the trial judge would know the particular point being made in time to do something about it.”

B e t h e a v

. Commonwealth , 2 97 Va. 730

, 7 4 3 ( 2 0 1 9 ) ( q u o t i n g D i c ke r

s o n v

. C o m m o n w e a l t

h

, 58- 5

-

Va

. A pp. 351

, 3 5 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) )

. T h e r e f o r e

, “ [ m ] aking one specific argument on an issue does not

preserve a separate le gal point on the same issue fo r review. ” E d w a r d s v

. C o m m o n w e a l t

h

, 41

Va. App. 752

, 7 6 0 ( 2 0 0 3 ) ( en banc )

.

T h e o n l y a

r g u m e n t I s r a e l r a i s e d t o t

h e c i r c u i t c o u r

t w a s th a t s h e n o t e d h e r a

p p e a l b e f o r e t h e

s t a t u t o r y p e r i o d t o a

p p e a l e n d e d o n N o v e m

b e r 5

, 2 0 2 0

. S h e n e v e r a

r g u e d th a t s h e h a d a

p p e a l e d h e r

m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r o r t

h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r

t w o u l d h a v e j u r

i s d i c t i o n o v e r a n a

p p e a l f r o m a m o t i o n

t o reconsider

. W h e n th e c i r c u i t c o u r t d e c i d e d t o d i s m i s s I s r a e l ’ s a p p e a l o n th e g r o u n d s t

h a t s h e h a d

a c tu a l l y a p p e a l e d h e r m o t

i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r i n s t e a d o f th e u n d e r l y i n g c o n v i c t i o n

— a n d that a

p p e a l i n g

a m o t i o n t o reconsider d o e s n o t g i v e t h e c i r c u i t c o u r

t j u r i s d i c t i o n

, th e c i r c u i t c o u r

t m a d e i t s r

u l i n g

b a s e d o n a r e a s o n th a t n e i th e r p a r t y h a d a c tu a l l y a

r g u e d t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r

t

.

B e c a u s e I s r a e l h a d n o t a

r g u e d th a t s h e h a d a

p p e a l e d h e r m o t

i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r

, s h e n e e d e d t o

m a k e a c o n t e mp o r a n e o u s o b

j e c t i o n a t t h e t i m e o f th e r

u l i n g t h a t h a d d i s m i s s e d h e r a

p p e a l b a s e d o n

th a t r e a s o n i n o r d e r t o p r e s e r v e t h i s a s s i g n m e n t o f e r

r o r f o r a p p e a l

. S e e E

d w a r d s

, 4 1 V a

. A p p

. a t

7 6 0 ( “ M aking one specific argument on an issue does not prese r v e a separa t e le gal point on the

same is sue for review

. ” )

. H o w e v e r

, Is rael ’ s counsel f a i l e d t o m a

k e a c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s o b

j e c t i o n a t

th e h e a r i n g a t th e t i m e o f t

h e c i r c u i t c o u r

t ’ s r u l i n g g r a n t i n g th e m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s

. A l l h e s a i d t o th e

c i r c u i t c o u r

t a f t e r t h e c o u r t m a d e i t s r

u l i n g w a s “ T h a n k y o u

, Y o u r H o n o r

. ” F u r t h e r m o r e

, I srael s t

i l l

h a d t w e n t y

- o n e d a y s u n d e r R u l e 1 : 1 a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e f i n a l o r d e r o n A u g u s t 1 0

, 2 0 2 1

, t o f i l e a

m o t i o n f o r reconsideration w i t

h t h e c i r c u i t c o u r

t

, b u t s h e d i d n o t f

i l e a m o t i o n f o r r econsideration o r- 6

-

a n y w r i t t e n o b j e c t i o n w i th t h e c i r c u i t c o u r

t w h a t s o e v e r

. T herefore

, w e h o l d t h a t Israel d i d n o t

p r e s e r v e t h i s a s s i g n m e n t o f e r

r o r f o r c o n s i d e r a

t i o n o n a p p e a l

. 2 S e e R u l e 5 A : 1 8

.

B. A s s i g n m e n t o f E r

r o r I I

I n Israel ’ s s e c o n d a s s i g n m e n t o f e r r o r

, s h e c o n t e n d s th a

t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r

t v i o l a t e d h e r

F o u r t e e n th A m e n d m e n t d

u e p r o c e s s r

i g h t s w h e n i t d e n i e d h e r r e q u e s t f o r a n e v i d e n t

i a r y h e a r i n g

.

H o w e v e r

, s h e n e v e r r a i s e d a n a r g u m e n t t o th e c i r c u i t c o u r t t h a t n o t o r d e r i n g a

n e v i d e n t i a

r y h e a r i n g

w o u l d v i o l a t e h e r F o u r

t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t d u e p r o c e s s r i g h t s

— a n d n e v e r o b j e c t e d t o th e c i r c u i t

c o u r t ’ s r u l i n g o n t h e g r o u n d s t h a t i t v i o l a t e d h e r d u e p r o c e s s r i g h t s

. T h e r e f

o re

, Isr ael h a s a l s o

w a i v e d t h i s argument o n a

p p e a l

. S e e R u l e 5 A : 1 8

.

I I I. C O N C L U S I O N

I n s h o r t

, Israel f a i l e d t o p re s e r v e e i t h e r o f h e r a s s i g n m e n t s o f e r r o r f o r r e v i e w b y th i s C o u r

t

.

W h e n t h e circuit c o u r

t d e c i d e d t

h a t Israel h a d a

p p e a l e d h e r m o t

i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r a n d t

h a t i t l a c k e d

2 The circui t court also did not err in dismissing Israel ’ s ap peal f or lack of jurisdiction

because she did not timely notice he r appeal

. In reaching this c onclusion , we apply the

right

- r e sult

- diff

er ent

- r eas o n doct r in e and consider onl y those fac t s f ound by the finde r of fact or

that are otherwise undisputed in the record b e fore us on appeal

. See Peters v. Commonwealth

, 72 Va. App. 378, 388

- 89 (2020) ( citing Spinner v. Commonwealth , 297 V a

. 384, 391 (2019)) ;

see also Pe rry v. Commonwealth

, 280 Va. 57 2

, 5 7 8

- 8 0 (2010) ; Banks v. Commonwealth

, 280

Va. 612

, 6 1 7 (2010).

In r ele vant part

, Code § 16.1

- 132 prov ides, “ Any person convicted in a district court of

an offense not feloni ous shall have t h e right, at any t i me withi n te n d ays from such conviction,

an d whether or not such conviction was upon a plea of guilty, to appeal to the circuit court. ” It is

undisputed th at Israel was required to appeal t o the circuit court by November 5, 2020 , but s h e

did not file the n otice o f a ppe a l until November 6, 2020.

T he m otion to r econsid er that Israel filed on Novem ber 5, 2020

, was not sufficient t o

appe al her conviction

. First

, Israel d id not request to appeal her conviction anyw her e in the

m otion to r e c onsid er. She s t a t e d

, “ I w o u l d l i k e a f a i r t r i a l i f t h i s c a s e i s n o t r e c o n s i d e r e d ” a nd

told the general district court a number of thi ngs she believed it should weigh in her favor as it

reconsidered its ruling. (Emphasis added). Furthermore, Israel filed a n actual n otice o f a ppeal

o n the following day

— N ovember 6, 2 020

. In addition , t h e words “ Appeal Noted ” on the bottom

of the m otion to r econsider did not somehow convert I s rael ’ s m otion to r econsider into a notice

of appeal to the circuit court.

In sho r t, Israel un fortun a tely fil e d the n otice of a ppeal a day la te. Therefore, the circu it

court lacked jurisdiction under Code § 16.1

- 132 to hear her appea l because Israel did not timely

appeal her conviction

.- 7

-

j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r a p p e a l s f r o m m o t i o n s t o r e c o n s i d e r ( w i t h o u t a r g u m e n t o n t

h i s p o i n t b y e i th e r

p a r t y )

, Israel d i d n o t o b

j e c t t o th e c i r c u i t c o u r

t ’ s h o l d i n g a

t t h e t i m e o f t h a t r u l i n g

. I n a d d i t

i o n

, I s r a e l

a l s o f a i l e d t o f i l e a n y w r i t t e n o b

j e c t i o n s i n t h e t w e n t y

- o n e d a y s a f

t e r e n t r y o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r

t ’ s f i n a l

o r d e r w h i l e t

h e i s s u e w a s s t i l l u n d e r t

h e c o n t r o l o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r

t

. T h e r e f o re

, u n d e r R u l e 5 A : 1 8

,

Israel ’ s f i r s t a s s i g n m e n t o f e r

r o r w a s n o t p r e s e r v e d f

o r consideration o n a

p p e a l

. F u r

t h e r m o r e

, w e

h o l d t h a t Israel a l s o f

a i l e d t o p r e s e r v e h e r s e c o n d a s s i g n m e n t o f e r r o r f o r a p p e a l b e c a

u s e s h e n e v e r

a r g u e d t o th e c i r c u i t c o u r

t th a t n o t h a v i n g a n e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g w o u l d b e a v i o l a t i o n o f h e r

F o u r t e e n th A m e n d m e n t d

u e p r o c e s s r

i g h t s

— a n d d i d n o t f

i l e a n o b j e c t i o n t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r

t ’ s r u l i n g

b a s e d o n t h a

t a r g u m e n t

.

C o n s e q u e n t

l y

, f o r a l l o f th e s e r e a s o n s

, w e d o n o t dis tu r b th e c i r c u i t c o u r

t ’ s r u l i n g

.

A f f i r m e d

.