COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Annunziata and Overton 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

RAUL ENRIQUE ALCANTARA 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1490-96-1 BY JUDGE JOSEPH E. BAKER 

 MAY 20, 1997 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS 

Robert P. Frank, Judge 

 J. Ashton Wray, Jr., for appellant. 

 Robert H. Anderson, III, Assistant Attorney 

General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney 

General, on brief), for appellee. 

 In this appeal from his bench trial convictions by the 

Circuit Court of the City of Newport News (trial court), Raul 

Enrique Alcantara (appellant) contends that his pleas of guilty 

to three counts of aggravated involuntary manslaughter should be 

reversed and a new trial ordered. Appellant asserts that, at the 

time he entered his pleas, the trial court erroneously advised 

him that the maximum sentence he could receive was substantially 

less than the punishment actually imposed. 

 As the parties are familiar with the record, we recite only 

those facts necessary to an understanding of this opinion. When 

determining whether appellant's pleas would be accepted, the 

trial court asked appellant: 

 COURT: Do you understand that if convicted 

you could receive a sentence in the 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

penitentiary of not less than one, no [sic] 

more than twenty years and that one year 

cannot be suspended? Do you understand that? 

 APPELLANT: Yes. 

In fact, appellant could have received that punishment on each of 

the convictions totaling as much as sixty years. 

 At sentencing, before imposing sentence upon appellant, the 

trial court noted that "[p]unishment for each count of aggravated 

involuntary manslaughter is fixed by statute at a period of 

incarceration greater of one year but no more than twenty years." 

(Emphasis added.) At that time, neither appellant nor his 

attorney responded to the statement. Thereafter, the trial court 

imposed a sentence of twenty years as punishment on each charge, 

or a total of sixty years in the penitentiary. Ten years of each 

sentence was suspended. Once again, neither appellant nor his 

attorney objected or advised the court that appellant was 

previously told he could receive no more than twenty years. 

 Subsequently, appellant moved the trial court to reconsider 

the sentences imposed, and the parties argued the motion to 

reconsider before the trial court. Even in the motion to 

reconsider, neither appellant nor his attorney reminded the trial 

court that appellant had been advised he could be sentenced to a 

maximum of twenty years. 

 Appellant never made the trial court aware of the alleged 

error or advised the trial court that appellant had not known the 

maximum punishment he faced. If an error occurs, the trial court 
- 3 - 

must be given an opportunity to correct such error. Rule 5A:18 

declares that no ruling of the trial court will be considered by 

the Court of Appeals as a basis for reversal unless an objection 

was stated together with the grounds therefor at the time of the 

ruling, except for good cause shown or to enable this Court to 

attain the ends of justice. See Knight v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. 

App. 207, 216, 443 S.E.2d 165, 170 (1994); Gardner v. 

Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 418, 419, 350 S.E.2d 229, 230 (1986). 

The purpose of the rule is to give the trial court an opportunity 

to rule intelligently and avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals, 

and mistrials. Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 640, 642, 371 

S.E.2d 314, 315 (1988). Because the record fails to show that 

appellant met the requirements of Rule 5A:18, and because we find 

no reason to apply the good cause or ends of justice exceptions, 

the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. 

 Affirmed.