COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Willis and Overton 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

JOHN DOBBS BELLINGER 

 OPINION BY 

v. Record No. 0845-95-1 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR. 

 NOVEMBER 19, 1996 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH 

Robert B. Cromwell, Jr., Judge 

 Gerard T. Schafer (J. Russell Fentress, IV; 

Schafer & Russo; Goss, Meier, Fentress & 

Gutterman, on brief), for appellant. 

 Margaret Ann B. Walker, Assistant Attorney 

General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney 

General, on brief), for appellee. 

 John Dobbs Bellinger was convicted in a bifurcated jury 

trial of voluntary manslaughter and was sentenced in accordance 

with the jury's verdict to serve ten years in the penitentiary. 

On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in admitting 

into evidence, at the sentencing phase of his trial, three 

disposition records for bad check offenses, because they did not 

constitute "record[s] of conviction[s]" admissible under Code 

§ 19.2-295.1. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and 

remand the case for resentencing. 

 Code § 19.2-295.1 provides in pertinent part, 

 In cases of trial by jury, upon a finding 

that the defendant is guilty of a felony, a 

separate proceeding limited to the 

ascertainment of punishment shall be held as 

soon as practicable before the same jury. At 

such proceeding, the Commonwealth shall 

present the defendant's prior criminal 

convictions by certified, attested or 
- 2 - 

exemplified copies of the record of 

conviction . . . ." 

 At the sentencing phase of Bellinger's trial, the trial 

court admitted into evidence three documents, which the 

Commonwealth contended were prior orders of conviction. Each 

document was on a form designated "FORM DC-316 12/82 (114 2-102 

4/84)." Each document set forth on its first page a warrant of 

arrest charging Bellinger with a criminal bad check violation, 

Code § 18.2-181, Bellinger's personal description, and an 

executed form noting his arrest. The second page of each 

document set forth a form whereon could be noted the incidents of 

trial and disposition of the charge. The form provided a place 

for the trial judge's signature. Specifically provided on that 

form were places to note the presence or absence of the accused, 

his plea, the presence of counsel for the Commonwealth and the 

accused, disposition of the charge and the sentence imposed upon 

a finding of guilt (fine, incarceration, probation, etc.). On 

each of the documents tendered by the Commonwealth, all of the 

listed items were left blank. None of the documents was signed 

or dated by the trial judge. To the right of each form trial 

order was a monetary listing. This listing on each document 

showed a fine, items of cost, and a total. At the foot of each 

monetary listing was a block noted, "date paid." Each block had 

a date noted and to the right of each block was a receipt number. 

 The monetary itemizations were not signed. 

 Attached to each warrant form was a copy of a check 
- 3 - 

appearing to relate to the charge. Attached also to each warrant 

was a "misdemeanor cover sheet" containing a printed form whereon 

were notations relating to bail and continuances. On each form, 

at the place provided for "final disposition," is the stamped 

notation, "NO. JAIL 19.2-160." On each misdemeanor cover sheet, 

at the place provided for "Presiding Judge:" appear the printed 

initials, "RLS." 

 The record contains no other notation of disposition and no 

formal order of conviction with respect to any of the three 

charges. 

 Code § 16.1-129 permits a criminal charge to be tried on a 

warrant in a court not of record. However, neither that code 

section nor Chapter 7 of Title 16.1 (Code § 16.1-123.1, et seq.) 

provides the manner in which judgments thus rendered are to be 

memorialized. For those requirements we look to Title 19.2, 

which governs criminal procedure generally in the courts of the 

Commonwealth. See the definition of "court" set forth in Code 

Section 19.2-5. 

 Code § 19.2-307 sets forth the required contents of a 

judgment order in a criminal trial, as follows: 

 The judgment order shall set forth the plea, 

the verdict or findings and the adjudication 

and sentence, whether or not the case was 

tried by jury, and if not, whether the 

consent of the accused was concurred in by 

the court and the attorney for the 

Commonwealth. If the accused is found not 

guilty, or for any other reason is entitled 

to be discharged, judgment shall be entered 

accordingly. 
- 4 - 

 The provisions relating to trial by jury are not applicable 

to district court proceedings. However, the other findings 

required by Code § 19.2-307 are mandatory. The documents 

submitted in Bellinger's trial as orders of conviction failed, in 

every respect, to satisfy those requirements. 

 Expressing doubt as to the sufficiency of the tendered 

documents to constitute "record[s] of conviction[s]," the trial 

court concluded that they were, nevertheless, evidence of 

convictions and admitted them on that basis. Pursuing this 

argument, the Commonwealth contends that the notation of a fine 

and costs and of a "date paid" in each monetary listing is 

evidence of a conviction and of the imposition of a fine. We 

find this argument unpersuasive. The record does not disclose 

the authorship of the notations, whether they were made by a 

person authorized to do so, or whether they were made as a result 

of a rendered judgment or merely in anticipation of judgment. 

Furthermore, even if the notation of a fine and costs is 

suggestive of a conviction, it remains nonetheless silent as to 

the nature of that conviction. 

 Code § 19.2-295.1 provides for the admissibility of 

"record[s] of conviction[s]," not records of accusation. The 

documents received in this case were no more than the latter. 

 The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and this case 

is remanded to it for resentencing. 

 Reversed and remanded.