COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Elder, Felton and Senior Judge Willis

DOUGLAS L. MILLER MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1050-03-2 PER CURIAM FEBRUARY 10, 2004 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF KING GEORGE COUNTY

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF KING GEORGE COUNTY Horace A. Reverc omb, III, Judge (Douglas L. Miller, pro se , on briefs). (Matthew J. Britton, Commonwea lth’s Attorney, on brief), for appellee.
Douglas L. Miller appeals the March 25, 2003 rulin g of the circuit co urt finding him in contempt for violating the court’s July 26, 2002 ruling or dering him to abate a zoning violation. On appeal, he contends (1) the court erred by “exceed[ing] its authorit y or jurisdiction when ruling on contempt when the [c]ircuit [c]ourt’s original ruling was under appeal,” (2) the court erred by “refusing to determine the constitutionality of an issu e when the issue was befo re [it] and the loss of constitutional privilege was unde r threat,” (3) “King George County’s Zoning Ordinance [is] unconstitutional and/or in violation of multiple sections of [the] Virginia Code,” and (4) the trial court “abuse[d] its authority when prescribing a fine and sentence without adequately considering the degree of public good or ha rm.” Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1- 413, this opinion is not designated for publication.- 2 - Background On July 26, 2002, the circuit court found appell ant in violation of King George County Zoning Ordinance 1.7.1 for operating a non-communitywater system without a special exception permit, in that he owned certain real property consisting of thr ee separate structures, all served by one well, the sole water service for each struct ure. The court ordered appellant to pay a fine and to abate the violation within ten days of the court’s ruling. On November 19, 2002, the court found appellant in contempt of the July 26, 2002 order. The court suspended the imposition of sentence to allow appellant to abate the violation. On January 24, 2003, the court again found appellant in contempt for failing to abate the violation. The court continued the matter for sentencing to March 20, 2003 and again allowed appellant time to abate the violation. At the March 20, 2003 hearing, Jack Green, King George County Zoning Administrator, testified he viewed the property that morning and determined appellant had still failed to abate the violation. The court found appellant in cont empt and sentenced him to a fine and to six months in jail, all of which the court suspended. I. Citing Rule 1:1, appellant asserts the trial co urt acted without jurisdiction when it entered the March 25, 2003 order. He appears to contend that because that order was entered more than twenty-one days after the original July 26, 2002 order, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to hold him in contempt. Rule 1:1 provides, in pertinent part: All final judgments, orders, and de crees, irrespective of terms of court, shall remain under the contro l of the trial court and subject to be modified, vacated, or suspe nded for twenty-one days after the date of entry, and no longer.- 3 - The circuit court order, finding appellant in contem pt for violating its earlier order, does not modify, vacate, or suspend the July 2002 order. Rule 1:1 was not implicated in the pro ceedings below. Under Code § 18.2-456, a court may find a party in contempt of court for “[d]isobedience or resistance . . . to a ny lawful process, judgment, decree or order of the court.” “The power to punish for contempt is inherent in, and as ancient as, courts themselves. It is essential to the proper administration of the law, to enable c ourts to enforce their orders, judgments and decrees.” Carter v. Commonwealth , 2 Va. App. 392, 395, 345 S.E.2d 5, 7 (1986). The trial properly exercised its power to enforce its orders and did not ac t without jurisdiction. II., III., and IV. It appears that these arguments were not made to the trial court. There is no reference in the briefs to the pages of the transcript or appendix where these arguments were presented. See Rule 5A:20(d). “We will not search the record fo r errors in order to interpret the appellant’s contention and correct deficiencies in a brief.” Buchanan v. Buchanan , 14 Va. App. 53, 56, 415 S.E.2d 237, 239 (1992). Inasmuch as it appears that the arguments made before this Court were never made in the trial court, we decline to cons ider the issues for the first time on appeal. See Jacques v. Commonwealth , 12 Va. App. 591, 593, 405 S.E.2d 630, 631 (1991) (citing Rule 5A:18); Zipf v. Zipf , 8 Va. App. 387, 392, 382 S.E.2d 263, 265 (1989). Accordingly, Rule 5A:18 bars our consideration of these questions on appeal. Moreover, the record does not reflect a ny reason to invoke the good cause or ends of justice exceptions to Rule 5A:18 as appellant atta cks the validity of the July 26, 2002 order. He attempts to collaterally challenge the final order finding he violated King George County Zoning Ordinance 1.7.1. Appellant appealed this order to the Supreme Court of Virginia, which has rejected his appeal. He cannot now challenge that order before this Court. “Generally, a judgment or decree rendered by a court having ju risdiction over the part ies and subject matter- 4 - must be challenged by direct appeal and cannot be attacked collaterally.” Peet v. Peet , 16 Va. App. 323, 326, 429 S.E.2d 487, 490 (1993) (citations omitted). Accordingly, we summarily af firm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27. Affirmed.