Present: All the Justices 

TARIQ RASHAD AMIN 

 

v. Record No. 122035 OPINION BY 

 JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS 

COUNTY OF HENRICO October 31, 2013 

FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

 In this appeal, we consider whether the Court of Appeals 

of Virginia erred in holding that Rule 5A:12 prevented it from 

addressing whether the circuit court's order convicting Tariq 

Rashad Amin ("Amin") was void ab initio. 

I. Facts and Proceedings Below 

 Amin was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon in 

violation of "Henrico County Ordinance 22-2 incorporating 

Virginia Code Section 18.2-308." He appealed his conviction 

to the Court of Appeals of Virginia ("Court of Appeals"). In 

his petition for appeal he included one assignment of error, 

which stated, "The trial court erred in denying the motion to 

suppress." The Court of Appeals denied the petition for 

appeal. 

 Amin filed a petition for rehearing by a three-judge 

panel. His petition included one assignment of error, which 

stated, "The Court erred in holding that the trial court did 

not err in denying the motion to suppress." The Court of 

Appeals granted Amin's petition for rehearing. Amin then 

filed his "Appellant Designation of the Appendix and 
2

Assignments of Error." In this pleading, Amin included two 

assignments of error. He kept his original assignment of 

error challenging the denial of the motion to suppress, but 

also added an additional assignment of error, which stated, 

"That the conviction is void as a matter of law as there 

exists no Henrico County Ordinance 22-2 incorporating Virginia 

Code Section 18.2-308." 

 The Court of Appeals issued a published opinion, Amin v. 

County of Henrico, 61 Va. App. 67, 733 S.E.2d 661 (2012), in 

which it affirmed Amin's conviction. In its opinion, the 

Court of Appeals noted that Henrico County Ordinance 22-2 only 

adopts and incorporates the provisions of Title 18.2, Chapter 

7, Article 2, while the criminal act of carrying a concealed 

weapon under Code § 18.2-308 is in Title 18.2, chapter 7, 

Article 7. Id. at 73, 733 S.E.2d at 664 (emphasis added). 

The Court of Appeals acknowledged that "[i]t is well 

recognized that an order which is void ab initio is 'a 

complete nullity and it may be impeached directly or 

collaterally by all persons, anywhere, at any time, or in any 

manner.'" Id. at 74, 733 S.E.2d at 664 (quoting Singh v. 

Mooney, 261 Va. 48, 51-52, 541 S.E.2d 549, 551 (2001)). 

However, the Court of Appeals held that because Amin had not 

included the new assignment of error in his petition for 

appeal, it could not address whether the conviction order was 
3

void ab initio. Amin, 61 Va. App. at 73, 733 S.E.2d at 664. 

The Court of Appeals explained that "an appellate court must 

properly have acquired appellate jurisdiction itself before it 

can hear a challenge to any lower court or agency's actions," 

and determined that because Amin did not comply with Rule 

5A:12(c), the Court of Appeals could not address the issue. 

Id. at 74-75, 733 S.E.2d at 665 (internal quotation marks 

omitted). 

 Amin timely filed a petition for appeal in this Court, 

and we awarded him an appeal on the following assignment of 

error: 

That the Court of Appeals erred in denying 

that the conviction is void as a matter of 

law as there exists no Henrico County 

Ordinance 22-2 incorporating Virginia Code 

Section 18.2-308 pursuant to the ends of 

justice exception of Rule 5A:18 by 

applying Rule 5A:12. Relief is requested 

here pursuant to Rule 5:25. 

II. Analysis 

A. Rule 5:17 

 We must first address whether Amin's assignment of error 

to this Court is sufficient. Rule 5:17(c) requires that all 

petitions for appeal filed in this Court list the specific 

errors in the rulings below that the appellant challenges. 

"When appeal is taken from a judgment of the Court of Appeals, 

only assignments of error relating to assignments of error 
4

presented in, and to actions taken by, the Court of Appeals 

may be included in the petition for appeal to this Court." 

Rule 5:17(c)(ii). 

 Although Amin's assignment of error could certainly have 

been more artfully drafted, it is sufficient to assert that 

the Court of Appeals erred by applying Rule 5A:12 and refusing 

to address whether Amin's conviction was void ab initio as a 

matter of law. Accordingly, we will now address the merits of 

his appeal. 

B. Standard of Review 

 We review questions of law de novo. See Stevens v. 

Commonwealth, 283 Va. 296, 302, 720 S.E.2d 80, 82 (2012). "A 

lower court's interpretation of the Rules of this Court, like 

its interpretation of a statute, presents a question of law 

that we review de novo." LaCava v. Commonwealth, 283 Va. 465, 

469, 722 S.E.2d 838, 840 (2012) (citations omitted). 

C. Discussion 

 Rule 5A:12(c)(1) sets out the requirements for petitions 

for appeal filed in the Court of Appeals. It states in 

relevant part: 

(i) Effect of Failure to Assign Error. 

Only assignments of error assigned in the 

petition for appeal will be noticed by 

this Court. If the petition for appeal 

does not contain assignments of error, it 

shall be dismissed. 
5

 The Court of Appeals is correct that ordinarily when a 

party fails to comply with Rule 5A:12, the Court of Appeals 

may refuse to consider any assignment of error that is not 

raised in a timely manner or not properly included in the 

petition for appeal. However, the exception to that general 

rule was articulated by this Court in Singh v. Mooney. 

In Singh, we held that an order that is void ab initio 

"may be impeached directly or collaterally by all persons, 

anywhere, at any time, or in any manner." 261 Va. at 52, 541 

S.E.2d at 551 (internal quotation marks omitted). We also 

held that Rule 1:1, which limits the jurisdiction of a court 

to twenty-one days after entry of the final order, does not 

apply to an order which is void ab initio. Id. at 52, 541 

S.E.2d at 551. The reason for that remedy is that an order 

which is void ab initio is a "nullity," and is without effect 

from the moment it comes into existence. Kelley v. Stamos, 

285 Va. 68, 75, 737 S.E.2d 218, 221 (2013). Accordingly, the 

Court of Appeals may not use a rule of court to supersede this 

principle of law that implicates constitutional principles of 

due process. 

 As vital as this principle of law is, the Court of 

Appeals was correct in its holding that an appellate court 

must have acquired appellate jurisdiction itself before it can 

hear a challenge to a lower court or agency's actions, 
6

including a challenge that a lower court's order is void ab 

initio. Therefore, in order to be able to consider the merits 

of Amin's argument on this point, the Court of Appeals must 

have acquired appellate jurisdiction over the case. 

A litigant's failure to include any sufficient 

assignments of error in a petition for appeal can deprive this 

Court of active jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Davis v. 

Commonwealth, 282 Va. 339, 339-40, 717 S.E.2d 796, 796-97 

(2011). Similarly, in Smith v. Commonwealth, 281 Va. 464, 

468, 706 S.E.2d 889, 892 (2011), we held that "noncompliance 

with the rule involving the timely filing of a petition for 

appeal and including assignments of error in that petition 

deprive the appellate court of active jurisdiction over the 

appeal." If Amin's petition for appeal had been untimely, had 

failed to include any assignments of error, or if the only 

assignment of error had been insufficient to comply with Rule 

5A:12, the Court of Appeals would have lacked active 

jurisdiction and would have been required to dismiss the 

petition for appeal. 

In this case, however, Amin's petition for appeal 

included one proper assignment of error. All the necessary 

parties were present and the appeal had been timely filed and 

granted. Consequently, the Court of Appeals had acquired 

active jurisdiction over Amin's appeal. At that point, Amin 
7

had the right to raise the issue whether his conviction order 

was void ab initio. This issue may be advanced "directly or 

collaterally by all persons, anywhere, at any time, or in any 

manner," Singh, 261 Va. at 52, 541 S.E.2d at 551 (internal 

quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, once the Court of 

Appeals acquired appellate jurisdiction over Amin's appeal, it 

was required to review the merits of Amin's argument that the 

conviction order he was appealing was void ab initio. 

III. Conclusion 

 We will reverse the Court of Appeal's holding that Rule 

5A:12 barred it from considering Amin's argument that the 

conviction order he was appealing was void ab initio. We 

remand the matter to the Court of Appeals for a determination 

of this question on the merits. 

 Reversed and remanded.

JUSTICE POWELL, dissenting. 

The majority briefly discusses Amin’s assignment of error 

before concluding that the Court of Appeals erred in not 

reaching the merits of Amin’s claim that his conviction from 

Henrico County for possession of a concealed weapon was void 

ab initio. I respectfully disagree with the majority that 

Amin’s assignment of error is sufficient to place his 
8

substantive complaint before us. Therefore, for the following 

reasons, I would dismiss his appeal. 

“When appeal is taken from a judgment of the Court of 

Appeals, only assignments of error relating to assignments of 

error presented in, and to actions taken by, the Court of 

Appeals may be included in the petition for appeal to this 

Court.” Rule 5:17(c)(ii). 

 The purpose of assignments of error 

is to point out the errors with reasonable 

certainty in order to direct this [C]ourt 

and opposing counsel to the points on 

which appellant intends to ask a reversal 

of the judgment, and to limit discussion 

to these points. Without such 

assignments, appellee would be unable to 

prepare an effective brief in opposition 

to the granting of an appeal, to determine 

the material portions of the record to 

designate for printing, to assure himself 

of the correctness of the record while it 

is in the clerk’s office, or to file, in 

civil cases, assignments of cross-error. 

Harlow v. Commonwealth, 195 Va. 269, 271-

72, 77 S.E.2d 851, 853 (1953). 

Yeatts v. Murray, 249 Va. 285, 290, 455 S.E.2d 18, 21 (1995). 

 Amin’s assignment of error is 

That the Court of Appeals erred in 

denying that the conviction is void as a 

matter of law as there exists no Henrico 

County Ordinance 22-2 incorporating 

Virginia Code Section 18.2-308 pursuant to 

the ends of justice exception of Rule 

5A:18 by applying Rule 5A:12. Relief is 

requested here pursuant to Rule 5:25. 
9

Contrary to Amin’s assignment of error, the Court of 

Appeals did not deny that his conviction was void. To the 

contrary, the Court of Appeals did not address Amin’s argument 

on the merits. Specifically, the Court of Appeals held that 

it lacked “appellate jurisdiction” to consider the issue on 

the merits because Amin failed to include an assignment of 

error in his petition to the Court of Appeals that addressed 

whether his conviction order was void ab initio. Regardless 

of whether the Court of Appeals was correct, Amin’s assignment 

of error to this Court does not assign error to the Court of 

Appeals’ holding that it lacked jurisdiction but instead 

assigns error that incorporates his substantive argument that 

his conviction order was void ab initio. Thus, I do not 

believe that Amin’s assignment of error is sufficient to 

comply with Rule 5:17(c)(ii) to properly bring him before this 

Court and I would dismiss his appeal.