COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Elder, Bray and Fitzpatrick 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

JEROME EVANS 

v. Record No. 0870-95-2 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

 JUDGE RICHARD S. BRAY 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA APRIL 2, 1996 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND 

Walter W. Stout, III, Judge 

 Cullen D. Seltzer, Assistant Public Defender 

(David J. Johnson, Public Defender, on 

brief), for appellant. 

 Steven A. Witmer, Assistant Attorney General

 (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney 

General, on brief), for appellee. 

 Jerome Evans (defendant) was convicted by a jury for 

statutory burglary. During the sentencing phase of a bifurcated 

trial, the court permitted the Commonwealth to introduce evidence 

of defendant's prior larceny conviction. Defendant complains on 

appeal that the Commonwealth failed to comply with Code 

§ 19.2-295.1, thereby rendering such evidence inadmissible. We 

disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

 The parties are fully conversant with the record, and we 

recite only those facts necessary to a disposition of this 

appeal. 

 The relevant procedural history is uncontroverted. The 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

Commonwealth offered into evidence "defendant's prior criminal 

convictions by certified . . . copies of the record of 

conviction" pursuant to Code § 19.2-295.1.1

 Defendant objected 

to the introduction of a certain record of conviction for 

larceny, arguing that the Commonwealth had previously provided 

defendant with only a copy of the "front side" of the related 

"warrant of arrest," rather than a certified copy of the 

"criminal conviction" in accordance with Code § 19.2-295.1.2 The 

trial court, however, admitted the evidence, concluding that the 

"warrant of arrest" provided defendant sufficient 

"notice . . . that it was a conviction." 

 At the time of trial, Code 19.2-295.1 provided in pertinent 

part: 

 The Commonwealth shall provide to the 

defendant fourteen days prior to trial 

photocopies of certified copies of the 

defendant's prior criminal convictions 

which it intends to introduce at sentencing. 

(Emphases added). This statute "does not convey a substantive 

right" and is "[p]rocedural in nature." Riley v. Commonwealth, 

21 Va. App. 330, 337-38, 464 S.E.2d 508, 511 (1995); see J.B. v. 

 1Following defendant's trial, Code § 19.2-295.1 was amended 

to require the Commonwealth to provide defendant "notice of its 

intention to introduce evidence of the defendant's prior criminal 

convictions" and prescribes the form and content of such notice. 

 2The conviction was noted on the back of the warrant. 
- 3 - 

Brunty, 21 Va. App. 300, 303-05, 464 S.E.2d 166, 168-69 (1995). 

Thus, the applicable language of Code § 19.2-295.1 was merely 

directory and "'precise compliance [was] not . . . essential to 

the validity of the proceedings . . . .'" Commonwealth v. 

Rafferty, 241 Va. 319, 324, 402 S.E.2d 17, 20 (1991) (citation 

omitted); see Cheeks v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 578, 582, 459 

S.E.2d 107, 109 (1995). 

 Here, the defendant received a photocopy of the front side 

of the "warrant for arrest" relating to the conviction in issue. 

 While this portion of the warrant did not reflect the 

conviction, defendant was clearly notified of the Commonwealth's 

intention to introduce such evidence during the sentencing phase 

of trial. Thus, the Commonwealth's failure to precisely comply 

with the procedural requirements of Code § 19.2-295.1 violated no 

substantive right and resulted in no prejudice to defendant. 

 Accordingly, we find that the trial court correctly admitted 

evidence of the prior larceny conviction and affirm the judgment. 

 Affirmed.