COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Humphreys, AtLee and Raphael

EDWARD L. WATSON

MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0528-22-1 PER CURIAM

DECEMBER 13, 2022

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK

Everett A. Martin, Jr., Judge

(Edward L. Watson, on briefs), pro se.

(Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General; Rosemary V. Bourne, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. Appellee 

submitting on brief.

On February 11, 2022, Edward L. Watson, proceeding pro se, filed a motion to vacate his 

2006 convictions for second-degree murder and burglary. Watson asserted that his convictions 

were void because they were obtained by extrinsic fraud and that the City of Norfolk Circuit Court 

(“trial court”) had the authority under Code § 8.01-428(D) to vacate them. The trial court denied 

Watson’s motion to vacate, and he appeals that decision. For the reasons that follow, we conclude 

that Watson has failed to produce an adequate appellate record to determine whether the trial court 

erred in denying the motion to vacate. Thus, upon the current record, the panel unanimously holds 

that oral argument is unnecessary because we must conclude that “the appeal is wholly without 

merit.” Code § 17.1-403(ii)(a); Rule 5A:27(a). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.1

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.

1 Watson also filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing. That motion is denied.

UNPUBLISHED
- 2 -

BACKGROUND

In his motion to vacate in the trial court, Watson argued that his 2006 convictions for 

second-degree murder and burglary were procured through extrinsic fraud because, allegedly, a 

police officer who investigated the incident provided false information to obtain an arrest warrant

and the prosecutor presented false information to the grand jury to obtain indictments. Watson 

claimed that the trial court was thus misled during the criminal proceeding.

In its order denying the motion to vacate, the trial court recounted the claims Watson had 

raised in his state and federal petitions for writs of habeas corpus, his three previous motions to 

vacate his convictions, and his petition for a writ of mandamus to obtain documents relating to his 

arrest. The trial court noted that the Supreme Court of Virginia had denied Watson’s direct appeal 

of his convictions, as well as all of his appeals from the trial court’s denials of his motions to vacate, 

petitions for habeas corpus and mandamus relief, and motion for exculpatory evidence. The trial 

court concluded that Watson’s present motion to vacate was repetitive of his previous such motions 

and denied it.

ANALYSIS

On appeal of the trial court’s ruling, in a pleading styled “Petition for Appeal,” Watson 

claims that the trial court erred in failing to address the merits of his motion to vacate and refusing

to grant him relief under Code § 8.01-428(D).

2

2 On May 26, 2022, this Court granted Watson an extension of time until June 27, 2022, 

to file an amended opening brief. Watson filed documents he entitled “Amended Pleadings” on 

June 6, 2022. On June 10, 2022, this Court issued a show cause order because Watson had not 

filed an opening brief that complied with Rule 5A:20(d), which requires “[a] clear and concise 

statement of the facts that relate to the assignments of error, with references to the pages of the 

transcript, written statement, record, or appendix.” This Court granted Watson ten days to 

correct the deficiency. Watson filed an “Amended Opening Brief” on June 21, 2022, but it 

simply recited that he had filed his motion to vacate in the trial court and the court had denied it. 

By letter of July 8, 2022, this Court instructed Watson to incorporate the amendments to the 

opening brief into one pleading within fourteen days. Watson then filed another document 

entitled “Amended Pleadings” that did not incorporate the amendments but asserted compliance 
- 3 -

The record on appeal does not contain the record of the proceeding resulting in Watson’s 

convictions. Thus, this Court has no record, transcripts, written statements of fact, or other evidence 

to reflect what transpired in the earlier proceeding, much less substantiate Watson’s claim of 

extrinsic fraud.

“[O]n appeal the judgment of the lower court is presumed to be correct,” and the 

appellant bears the burden of presenting a “sufficient record from which we can determine 

whether the lower court has erred in the respect complained of. If the appellant fails to do this, 

the judgment will be affirmed.” Green v. Commonwealth, 65 Va. App. 524, 534 (2015)

(alteration in original) (quoting Smith v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 630, 635 (1993)). “[A]n 

appellate court must dispose of the case upon the record and cannot base its decision upon 

appellant’s petition or brief. . . . We may act only upon facts contained in the record.” Browning 

v. Browning, 68 Va. App. 19, 26-27 (2017) (second alteration in original) (quoting Smith, 16 

Va. App. at 635).

CONCLUSION

Without records regarding the underlying convictions, Watson asks this Court to find that 

the lower court erred in denying his claim that his convictions were procured by extrinsic fraud. 

We cannot do this without an adequate record of the proceedings before the trial court. See 

Francis v. Francis, 30 Va. App. 584, 591 (1999) (“Even pro se litigants must comply with the

rules of court.”). For this reason, we are unable to consider whether the trial court’s denial of the

motion to vacate was erroneous, and we affirm the judgment.

Affirmed.

with this Court’s rules. He also filed a reply brief on August 8, 2022, outside the time period this 

Court permitted him to incorporate his amendments into one pleading. We agree with the 

Commonwealth’s assertion that Watson’s “series of pleadings following the initial petition for 

appeal, which are not in and of themselves replacement briefs compliant with the Rules, do not 

comply with Rule 5A:20[.]”