COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Kelsey, McClanahan an d Senior Judge Willis Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia

REGGIE GATLING, S/K/A REGGIE A. GATLING MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 0263-05-1 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR. SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH Dean W. Sword, Jr., Judge S. Jane Chittom, Appellate Defender (Catherine E. P. Haas, Assistant Appellate Defender; Virginia In digent Defense Commission, on brief), for appellant. Kathleen B. Martin, Senior Assi stant Attorney General (Robert F. McDonnell, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

On appeal from his convictions of malicious wo unding, use of a firearm, and possession of a firearm by a convicted fe lon, Reggie A. Gatli ng contends the trial court erred (1) “in admitting the 1998 juvenile petition into evidenc e” and (2) “in finding th at the evidence was sufficient to prove that the appellant was guilty of possession of a firearm after having been found guilty of a delinquent act that would be a felo ny if committed by an adult.” However, in our order date d February 16, 2006, we awar ded Gatling an appeal on the limited question “[w]hether the 19 98 juvenile conviction indicated appellant had counsel present at

time of conviction.” We will consider only this limited question. See Parker v. Commonwealth , 42 Va. App. 358, 373, 592 S. E.2d 358, 366 (2004) (r ecognizing that we will consider only those arguments presented in the petition for appeal that were granted by this Court) . Furthermore, “[i]t is

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.- 2 - impermissible for an appellant to change the wording of an assignment of erro r, ‘especially when the assignment is set forth in the order of this Court awarding the appeal.’” White v.

Commonwealth , 267 Va. 96, 103, 591 S.E. 2d 662, 666 (20 04) (quoting Hamilton Development Co. v. Broad Rock Club, Inc. , 248 Va. 40, 43-44, 44 5 S.E.2d 140, 142-43 (1 994)). Therefore, we address Gatling’s arguments only as they relate to whether his 199 8 juvenile conviction indicated that he had counsel present at the time of conviction. See id. Upon consideration of the re cord and the arguments properly before us, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Background To prove that Gatling had been found guilty as a juvenile of a crime that would have been a felony if committed by an adult, the Commonwealth introduced into evidence a certified copy of a petition from the Portsmouth Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court (juvenile court). The petition states that Gatling’s fa ther was deceased, that his mother was Joanne Gatling, who shared his address, and that he was charged with possession of cocaine. The petition indicates that the case was set for “9/30/ 97.” Attached to the petition is a request for appointment of counsel, dated “9/30/97,” signe d by Gatling and by his mother, Joanne Gatling. This document, over the stamped signature of the juvenile court judge and date “9/30/97” states the appointment of “PD” as court-appointed lawyer. The document notes “Nov 14, 1997 @ 10 am” as “next hearing date and time.” The juven ile court preserved the petition and the request for appointment of counsel forms together and certified them together as a single record. On the back of the petition, over date “3-16-98” and the stamped signatu re of the juvenile court judge, a handwritten note reads, “Guilty of Poss. Cocaine-1 yr. Supervised probation, 25 hrs. comm. serv. wk & counseling ordered.”- 3 - Gatling testified that he was not “aware that [his juvenile conviction] was carried to [his] adult record.” He presented no evidence that he had not had counsel at that conviction. The trial court held that although the juvenile record was “not the gr eatest set of record keeping,” it proved Gatling had been found guilty of possession of cocaine and that he had been represented by the Public Defender. Analysis When a prior conviction is collaterally a ttacked in a subsequent proceeding, the Commonwealth is entitled to a presumption of re gularity regarding the pr ior conviction because “‘every act of a court of competent jurisdiction sh all be presumed to have been rightly done, till the contrary appears.’” Samuels v. Commonwealth , 27 Va. App. 119, 123, 497 S.E.2d 873, 875 (1998) (quoting Parke v. Raley , 506 U.S. 20, 30 (1992)). Therefore, “unless the defendant presents evidence rebutting the presumption of re gularity, by which it may be presumed that the conviction was obtained in compliance with the de fendant’s right to counsel, the Commonwealth has satisfied its burden of provi ng the prior conviction was valid and, therefore was admissible.”

Id. Furthermore, we are bound by a trial court’s f actual findings unless th ey are plainly wrong or

without evidence to support them. See Neal v. Commonwealth , 27 Va. App. 233, 237, 498 S.E.2d 422, 424 (1998). Gatling offered no evidence that he was not re presented by counsel in juvenile court. Although the trial court could ha ve relied solely on the presum ption of regularity, additional evidence supported its finding that Gatling’s 1998 juvenile convict ion was counseled. Gatling’s case in juvenile court was initially set for September 30, 1997. On that day, he and his mother requested the appointment of co unsel and “PD” was appointed. The coincidence of dates and the maintenance of the documents by the juvenile court as a single record supports the conclusion that they related to the charge set forth in the petition.- 4 - The trial court reasonably recognized “PD” to refer to the Public Defender. The case was scheduled for November 14, 1997 at 10:00 a.m., but ultimately was tried on March 16, 1998. As

stated in Samuels , the trial court could presume that the juvenile court and the Public Defender did their jobs properly and that the Public Defender was present on March 16, 1998 when Gatling was convicted. See Samuels , 27 Va. App. at 123, 497 S.E.2d at 875. The juvenile court order of conviction, written on the back of th e petition, clearly relate d to the petition and included a sentence, date, and the rubber-stamped signature of the judge. At his trial on the instant crimes, Gatling admitted by inference that he had been convicted as a juvenile of possession of cocaine when he stated that he di d not know that this conv iction “carried” to his

adult record.

The trial court’s factual findi ng that Gatling was represented by counsel at the time of his juvenile court conviction was not plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. We will not disturb that holding. Id. at 125, 497 S.E.2d at 876. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Affirmed.