COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: J u d g e s B e a l e s

, F r i e d m a n a n d C a l l i n s

Argued b y v i d e o c o n f

e r e n c e

C A R S O N M I T C H E L L J O N E S

, S / K / A

C A R S O N M

. J O N E S

, J R

. MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY

v. Re cord No. 0 3 5 4

- 2 2

- 2 J U D G E R A N D O L P H A

. B E A L E S

JANUARY 17, 2023

C O M M O N W E A L T H O F V I R G I N I A

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF H E N R I C O C O U N T Y

J o h n M a r s h a l l , Judge

P a u l C

. G a l a n i d e s for appellant.

L u c i l l e M

. W a l l

, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares,

Attorney General , on brief )

, for appellee.

C a r s o n M i t c h e l l J o n e s a p p e a l s a n o r d e r o f t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t o f H e n r i c o C o u n t y d e n y i n g

h i s m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e h i s m i s d e m e a n o r a s s a u l t c o n v i c t i o n

. O n a p p e a l

, J o n e s a r g u e s t h a t “ t he

t rial c ourt e rred by d enying the a ppellant ’ s m otion to s et a side because c onvicting the a ppellan t

of a s sa ult v iolates r es j udicata and the c onstit utional d ouble j eopardy p rinciple of f ormer

j eopardy. ”

I. B A C K G R O U N D

T o n y a T o l e r a n d h e r s i s t e r

, K a t r i n a F r i e r s o n

, t e s t i f i e d t h a t o n t h e e v e n i n g o f N o v e m b e r

2 6

, 2 0 1 9

, t h e y w e r e d r i v i n g o n t h e i n t e r s t a t e g o i n g t o a r e s t a u r a n t f o r d i n n e r

. W h i l e T o l e r w a s

d r i v i n g

, t h e s i s t e r s s a w a c a r q u i c k l y p u l l u p b e h i n d t h e m a n d s t a r t flashing i t s h e a d l i g h t s o n a n d

o f f

. T o l e r testified t h a t t h e c a r t h e n p u l l e d b e s i d e h e r a n d t h e t w o p e o p l e i n t h a t c a r

— C a r s o n

J o n e s a n d S h a w d a y B l e d s o e

— r o l l e d d o w n t h e i r w i n d o w s a n d c u r s e d a t t h e s i s t e r s

. B l e d so e

, t h e

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1

- 413, this opinion is not des ignat ed fo r publicati o n. UNPUBLISHED- 2

-

d r i v e r o f t h e s e c o n d v e h i c l e

, t h e n c u t i n fron t o f T o l e r a n d q u i c k l y s l a m m e d o n h e r b r a k e s

. A f t e r

e v a d i n g a p o t e n t i a l c o l l i s i o n

, T o l e r t o o k a n e a r b y e x i t t o g e t o f

f t h e i n t e r s t a t e

.

A f t e r T o l e r a n d B l e d s o e b o t h d r o v e t h e i r v e h i c l e s o f f t h e i n t e r s t a t e

, B l e d s o e t h e n s t o p p e d

h e r v e h i c l e i n f

r o n t o f T o l e r ’ s vehicle i n a t u r n l a n e a t a t r a f f i c l i g h t

. B l e d s o e t e s t i f

i e d t h a t a l l

f o u r i n d i v i d u a l s e x i t e d t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e v e h i c l e s t o c o n f r o n t o n e a n o t h e r w h i l e i n t h e t u r n l a n e

.

F r i e r s o n t e s t i f

i e d t h a t s h e c a l l e d f

o r l a w enforcement d u r i n g t h i s e n c o u n t e r

. A f t e r e v e r y o n e w e n t

b a c k inside t h e i r v e h i c l e s

, T o l e r a n d F r i e r s o n t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y a t t e m p t e d t o f i n d a w e l l

- l i t a r e a

t o w a i t f o r l a w e n f

o r c e m e n t t o a rr i v e

. T o l e r b e g a n d r i v i n g t o w a r d s a n e a r b y a p a r t m e n t c o m p l e x

,

f o l l o w i n g b e h i n d B l e d s o e a n d J o n e s

.

A s T o l e r w a s d r i v i n g t o w a r d s t h e a p a r t m e n t c o m p l e x

, J o n e s j u m p e d o u t o f B l e d s o e ’ s

vehicle a n d r a n i n f

r o n t o f T o l e r ’ s m o v i n g v e h i c l e

. T o l e r a v o i d e d h i t t i n g J o n e s a s s h e d r o v e i n t o

t h e a p a r t m e n t c o m p l e x

— which h a p p e n e d t o b e w h e r e B l e d s o e a n d J o n e s r e s i d e d

. J o n e s a n d

B l e d s o e w e n t i n s i d e t h e i r a p a r t m e n t w h i l e T o l e r a n d F r i e r s o n w e r e w a i t i n g f o r l a w e n f

o r c e m e n t

t o a rr i v e

. W h i l e T o l e r a n d F r i e r s o n w e r e w a i t i n g i n t h e a p a r t m e n t c o m p l e x ’ s p a r k i n g l o t

, J o n e s

a n d B l e d s o e r a n o u t o f t h e i r a p a r t m e n t a n d a p p r o a c h e d T o l e r ’ s v e h i c l e

. T o l e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t b o t h

J o n e s a n d B l e d s o e w e r e w i e l d i n g k n i v e s a s t h e y q u i c k l y a p p r o a c h e d h e r v e h i c l e

. F r i e r s o n

t e s t i f i e d t h a t a l t h o u g h n o o n e w a s p h y s i c a l l y h a r m e d

, J o n e s a n d B l e d s o e “ t h r e a t e n e d t o k i l l u s

. ”

L a w e n f o r c e m e n t s o o n a r r i v e d a n d a rr e s t e d B l e d s o e b u t w e r e u n a b l e t o a p p r e h e n d J o n e s

.

W h e n J o n e s w a s eventually a r r e s t e d

, h e w a s c h a r g e d i n g e n e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t w i t h

m i s d e m e a n o r a s s a u l t a n d m i s d e m e a n o r b r a n d i s h i n g a m a c h e t e

. T h e g e n e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o u n d

J o n e s g u i l t y o f a s s a u l t b u t a c q u i t t e d J o n e s o f b r a n d i s h i n g a m a c h e t e

. J o n e s t h e n a p p e a l e d h i s

a s s a u l t c o n v i c t i o n t o c i r c u i t c o u r t f o r a t r i a l d e n o v o

. A t h i s t r i a l d e n o v o i n c i r c u i t c o u r t

, t h e

p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d t h a t t h e g e n e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t a c q u i t t e d J o n e s o f b r a n d i s h i n g a m a c h e t e

. T h e

C o m m o n w e a l t h proffered t h e b a s i s f o r t h e r u l i n g

, s t a t i n g t h a t t h e g e n e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t j u d g e- 3

-

“ ruled spec ifi call y tha t h e had a finding that the Common wealth had not prov en its ca se beyond a

reasonable doubt on the length of the machete and that he didn’t feel that it had met that element;

that we had met that specific element and therefore, he acquitted the Def enda nt. ” J o n e s d i d n o t

o b j e c t t o t h e C o m m o n w e a l t h ’ s p r o f f e r

.

I n c i r c u i t c o u r t

, J o n e s w a s f o u n d g u i l t y o f a s s a u l t b a s e d s o l e l y o n t h e e v e n t s w h i c h t o o k

p l a c e a t t h e a p a r t m e n t c o m p l e x

. T h e c i r c u i t c o u r t d i d n o t b a s e i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n o n a n y o f t h e

e v e n t s t a k i n g p l a c e p r i o r t o t h e c o n f r o n t a t i o n a t t h e a p a r t m e n t c o m p l e x

. T h e t r i a l j u d g e r e a s o n e d

t h a t “ when weapons are introduced into the situation, that meets the definition of an assault,

placin g somebody in a reasonable fear of danger of bodily harm. ” A t t r i a l a n d a t t h e s e n t e n c i n g

h e a r i n g

, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t n o t e d t h a t J o n e s “ w a s g u i l t y o f t h e a s s a u l t

. ” J o n e s f i l e d a m o t i o n t o s e t

a s i d e t h e v e r d i c t arguing t h a t p r i n c i p l e s o f d o u b l e j e o p a r d y a n d r e s j u d i c a t a p r e v e n t e d t h e c i r c u i t

c o u r t f r o m c o n v i c t i n g J o n e s o f a s s a u l t a f t e r h e w a s a c q u i t t e d b y t h e g e n e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f t h e

b r a n d i s h i n g a m a c h e t e c h a r g e

. T h e c i r c u i t c o u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e t h e v e r d i c t

, a n d

J o n e s n o w a p p e a l s t o t h i s C o u r t

.

I I

. A N A L Y S I S

A. N o D o u b l e J e o p a r d y P r o b l e m

J o n e s a r g u e s t h a t “ c o n v i c t i n g h i m f o r a s s a u l t w o u l d v i o l a t e the F i f t h A m e n d m e n t

p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t D o u b l e J e o p a r d y following h i s a c q u i t t a l i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r B r a n d i s h i n g a

M a c h e t e

. ” “ Wh ether there has bee n a double jeopardy violation presents a que st ion o f la w

requiring a de novo r eview

. ” F u l l w o o d v

. C o m m o n w e a l t h

, 2 7 9 V a

. 5 3 1

, 5 4 0 ( 2 0 1 0 )

.

“ The double jeopardy clauses of the United States and the Virginia constitutio ns (U.S.

Const., a mend. V, and Va. Const., art. I, § 8, respectively) embody thre e guara ntee s. They

pro tect agains t (1) a second prosecution for the same offe nse after acquittal, (2) a prosecution for

the same offense after conviction, and (3) multiple pu nishments for the same offense. ”- 4

-

C o m m o n w e a l t h v

. H

u d g i n s

, 2 6 9 V a

. 6 0 2

, 6 0 4

- 0 5 ( 2 0 0 5 )

. “ Two offenses wi ll be consi dered the

same when (1) the tw o offenses are i dentical, (2) the former offens e is lesser includ ed in the

subsequent offense, or (3) the subse quent offense is l esser included in the former offense. ” I d

. a t

6 0 5

. T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a r t i c u l a t e d t h e t e s t f o r d e t e r m i n i n g whether o n e

o f f e n s e i s a l e s s e r i n c l u d e d o f a n o t h e r o f f e n s e i n Blo ck burger v. United States , 284 U.S. 299

(19 32)

. B l o c k b u r

g e r h o l d s “ t h a t where the same act or transaction constitutes a viola tion o f t wo

distinct statutory p rovis ions, the test to be appl ied to determine whether there are two offenses or

only one, is w hether each provision requires proof of a fact w hich the other d oes not. ” I d

. a t 3 0 4 ;

s e e U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. D ix o n

, 5 0 9 U

. S

. 6 8 8

, 6 9 6 ( 1 9 9 3 ) ( “ [ T ] he ‘ B lockburger ’ test [ ] inquires

whether each o ffense contains an element not contained in the other [

. ] ” )

. “[I] n applying t h i s test,

the two offenses are to be examined in the abstract, rather than with reference to the facts of the

parti cular cas e un der review.” Blythe v. Comm onwealth , 222 Va. 722, 72 6 ( 1981).

J o n e s a r g u e s t h a t a s s a u l t i s a l e s s e r

- i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e o f b r a n d i s h i n g a m a c h e t e

. C o d e

§ 1 8

. 2

- 5 7 ( A ) s t a t e s t h a t “ [ a ] ny person who commits a simple assault or assau lt and battery i s

guilty of a Class 1 mis demeanor

. ” I n t e rp r e t i n g C o d e § 1 8

. 2

- 5 7 ( A )

, t h e V i r g i n i a S u p r e m e C o u r t

h e l d t h a t

a common law assault, whether a crime or tort, occurs when an

assailant engages in an overt act intended to inflict bodily harm

and has the pr esent a bility to inf lict such ha rm or enga g es in an

overt act intended to place the victim in fear o r apprehension of

bodily harm and creates such reasonab le fear or apprehension in

the victim.

C a r t e r v

. C o m m o n w e a l t h

, 2 6 9 V a

. 4 4

, 4 7 ( 2 0 0 5 )

. O n l y t h e l a t t e r v e r s i o n o f a s s a u l t a p p l i e s i n

t h i s c a s e b e c a u s e t h e C o m m o n w e a l t h d o e s n o t a r g u e t h a t J o n e s “ e n g a g e [ d ] i n a n o v e r t a c t

i n t e n d e d t o i n f

l i c t b o d i l y h a r m

. ” S e e i d

. I n c o n t r a s t

, i n o r d e r t o s u p p o r t a b r a n d i s h i n g a m a c h e t e

c o n v i c t i o n

, the C o m m o n w e a l t h m u s t p r o v e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t d i d “ point, hold, or bra ndish a

machete or any wea pon, with an exposed blade 12 inches or longer, with the intent of- 5

-

intimida ting any person or group o f persons and in a manner that reasonably demonstrates that

intent. ” C o d e § 1 8

. 2

- 2 8 2

. 1

.

R e v i e w i n g t h e e l e m e n t s o f b o t h offens es i n t h e a b s t r a c t

, i t i s c l e a r t h a t a s s a u l t i s n o t a

l e s s e r

- i n c l u d e d o f

f e n s e o f b r a n d i s h i n g a m a c h e t e b e c a u s e e a c h o f f e n s e r e q u i r e s t h e p r o o f o f a n

e l e m e n t t h a t t h e o t h e r d o e s n o t r e q u i r e

. B l o c k b u r g e r

, 2 8 4 U

. S

. a t 3 0 4

. A c h a r g e o f b r a n d i s h i n g

a m a c h e t e r e q u i r e s t h e C o m m o n w e a l t h t o p r o v e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t d i d “ point, hold, or brandish a

machete or any weapon, w ith an exposed blade 12 inches or longer ”

— a n e l e m e n t w h i c h a s s a u l t

d o e s n o t r e q u i r e

. C o d e § 1 8

. 2

- 2 8 2

. 1

. A s s a u l t requi res t h e C o m m o n w e a l t h t o p r o v e t h a t t h e

d e f e n d a n t ’ s intentional a c t “ cre ates such reasonable fear or apprehension in the victi m

. ” C a r t e r

,

2 6 9 V a

. a t 4 7

. H o w e v e r

, t h e C o m m o n w e a l t h d o e s n o t n e e d t o p r o v e t h a t t h e v i c t i m a c t u a l l y

a p p r e h e n d e d o r f

e a r e d t h e d e f

e n d a n t ’ s a c t i n o r d e r t o s u p p o r t a conviction o f b r a n d i s h i n g a

m a c h e t e

. C o d e § 1 8

. 2

- 2 8 2

. 1

. G i v e n t h a t b o t h b r a n d i s h i n g a m a c h e t e a n d a s s a u l t e a c h h a v e

s e p a r a t e e l e m e n t s w h i c h t h e o t h e r o f f e n s e d o e s n o t h a v e

, a s s a u l t i s n o t a l e s s e r

- i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e

o f b r a n d i s h i n g a m a c h e t e

.

N o t a b l y

, e v e n i f a s s a u l t w e r e a l e s s e r

- i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e o f b r a n d i s h i n g a m a c h e t e

, J o n e s

c o u l d s t i l l h a v e b e e n t r i e d i n c i r c u i t c o u r t f o r a s s a u l t w i t h o u t t h a t t r i a l v i o l a t i n g h i s d o u b l e

j e o p a r d y r i g h t s b e c a u s e J o n e s d e c i d e d t o appeal h i s a s s a u l t c o n v i c t i o n f r o m g e n e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t

t o c i r c u i t c o u r t f

o r a t r i a l d e n o v o

. S e e C o d e § 1 6

. 1

- 1 3 2

. W h e n a d e f e n d a n t c h o o s e s t o a p p e a l a

m i s d e m e a n o r c o n v i c t i o n f r o m g e n e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t

, a

t r i a l o n t h e s a m e c h a r g e s i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t d o e s n o t v i o l a t e

d o u b l e j e o p a r d y p r i n c i p l e s

. . . s u b j e c t o n l y t o t h e l i m i t a t i o n t h a t

c o n v i c t i o n i n d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r a n o f f e n s e l e s s e r i n c l u d e d i n t h e o n e

c h a r g e d c o n s t i t u t e s a n a c q u i t t a l o f t h e g r e a t e r o f f e n s e

, p e r m i t t i n g

t r i a l d e n o v o i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t o n l y f o r t h e l e s s e r

- i n c l u d e d

o f f e n s e

.

K e n y o n v

. C o m m o n w e a l t h

, 3 7 V a

. A p p

. 6 6 8

, 6 7 3

- 7 4 ( 2 0 0 2 ) ( c i t i n g L e d b e t t e r v

. C o m m o n w e a l t h

,

1 8 V a

. A p p

. 8 0 5

, 8 1 0

- 1 1 ( 1 9 9 4 ) ; B u c k v

. C i t y o f D a n v i l l e

, 2 1 3 V a

. 3 8 7

, 3 8 8

- 8 9 ( 1 9 7 2 ) )

. T h e- 6

-

o n l y o f f e n s e w i t h w h i c h J o n e s c o u l d n o t b e c h a r g e d i n h i s t r i a l d e n o v o i n c i r c u i t c o u r t w a s

b r a n d i s h i n g a m a c h e t e

— a n d h e w a s n o t s o c h a r g e d t h e r e

.

C o n s e q u e n t l y

, J o n e s d i d n o t h a v e h i s d o u b l e j e o p a r d y r i g h t s v i o l a t e d w h e n h e w a s

c o n v i c t e d o f a s s a u l t i n c i r c u i t c o u r t d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t t h e g e n e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t h a d a c q u i t t e d

h i m o f b r a n d i s h i n g a m a c h e t e

.

B

. I s s u e P r e c l u s i o n D o e s N o t A p p l y

J o n e s a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e d o c t r i n e o f i s s u e p r e c l u s i o n i n r e s j u d i c a t a p r e v e n t e d t h e c i r c u i t

c o u r t f r o m c o n v i c t i n g h i m o f assaul t

. Jones c o n t e n d s t h a t i s s u e p r e c l u s i o n p r o h i b i t e d t h e

C o m m o n w e a l t h f

r o m p r e s e n t i n g a n y evidence o f J o n e s ’ s “ conduct o f ap proaching with the knife

and causing fear in another ” b e c a u s e J o n e s ’ s “ acquittal in the district c ourt for Brandishi ng a

Machete was a verdict in his favor on t he facts, and thus an acq uittal of all the el ements of the

offense for which he was tried. ”

“ Res judicata involves both i ssue and claim prec lusion

. ” F u n n y G u y

, L L C v

. L e c e g o

,

L L C

, 2 9 3 V a

. 1 3 5

, 1 4 2 ( 2 0 1 7 )

. I n h i s b r i e f a n d a t o r a l a r g u m e n t

, J o n e s a r g u e d t h a t i s s u e

p r e c l u s i o n a p p l i e d i n t h i s c a s e

. “ Issue preclusion, also known as collateral e stoppel, precludes

‘ parties to the first action and their privies ’ from relitigating ‘ any issue of fact actually litigat ed

a nd essentia l t o a valid and final person al judgment in the first action. ’ ” L a n e v

. B a y v i e w L o a n

S e r v i c i n g

, L L C

, 2 9 7 V a

. 6 4 5

, 6 5 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) ( q u o t i n g Funny Guy, LLC , 293 Va. at 142 )

. “Collateral

estoppel, as applied in criminal pr oceedin gs, becomes applic able only when th e defendant ’ s prior

acquitt al necessarily resolved a factual issue that the Commonwealth seeks to litigate again in a

s ubsequent proceeding.” Commonwealth v. Leonard

, 294 Va. 233

, 239 ( 2 0 1 7 )

. I s s u e p r e c l u s i o n

p r e v e n t s t h e C o m m o n w e a l t h f r o m relitigating i s s u e s o f u l t i m a t e f a c t t h a t w e r e e s s e n t i a l t o a

d e f e n d a n t ’ s p r i o r a c q u i t t a l

. A s h e v

. S w e n s o n

, 3 9 7 U

. S

. 4 3 6

, 4 4 3 ( 1 9 7 0 )

. H o w e v e r

, t h e V i r g i n i a

S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t i s s u e p r e c l u s i o n d o e s n o t p r e v e n t t h e C o m m o n w e a l t h f r o m- 7

-

p r e s e n t i n g “ s u b s i d i a r y f

a c t s ” a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e p r i o r a c q u i t t a l

. R h o d e s v

. C o m m o n w e a l t h

, 2 2 3

V a

. 7 4 3

, 7 4 9 ( 1 9 8 2 )

.

T he r e c o r d s h o w s t h a t J o n e s w a s a c q u i t t e d o f b r a n d i s h i n g a m a c h e t e s o l e l y b e c a u s e t h e

C o m m o n w e a l t h f

a i l e d t o p r o v e t h e l e n g t h o f t h e b l a d e

. T h e C o m m o n w e a l t h p r o f f e r e d tha t the

general district co urt j u d g e “ruled spe cifical ly that he had a finding that the Common wealth had

not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt on the length of the ma che te and that he didn’t feel

that it had me t that elemen t ; that we had met that spe cific element and therefo re, he acquitted the

Defend ant.” ( E m p h a s e s a d d e d )

. J o n e s n e v e r o b j e c t e d t o t h i s p r o f

f e r b y t h e C o m m o n w e a l t h

.

T h a t p r o f f e r c l e a r l y s p e c i f

i e d t h e u l t i m a t e f

a c t u p o n w h i c h t h e g e n e r a l dis tr ic t c o u r t

a c q u i t t e d J o n e s o f b r a n d i s h i n g a m a c h e t e

— i

. e

. , t h a t t h e C o m m o n w e a l t h f a i l e d t o p r o v e t h e

l e n g t h o f t h e b l a d e

. A s s u m i n g w i t h o u t d e c i d i n g t h a t i s s u e p r e c l u s i o n p r e v e n t e d t h e

C o m m o n w e a l t h f

r o m p u t t i n g o n e v i d e n c e o f t h e l e n g t h o f t h e b l a d e

, t h e C o m m o n w e a l t h w a s n o t

e s t o p p e d f

r o m p u t t i n g o n e v i d e n c e o f o t h e r f a c t s re l a t e d t o t h e c h a r g e f o r w h i c h J o n e s w a s

a c q u i t t e d

. R h o d e s

, 2 2 3 V a

. a t 7 4 9

. T h e s e subsidiary f a c t s i n c l u d e t h e ev idence t h a t J o n e s r a n

t o w a r d T o l e r a n d F r i e r s o n w h i l e w i e l d i n g a k n i f e a t t h e a p a r t m e n t c o m p l e x

. T h e c i r c u i t c o u r t

d i d n o t b a s e i t s d e c i s i o n f i n d i n g J o n e s g u i l t y o f a s s a u l t o n t h e l e n g t h o f t h e b l a d e ; i t o n l y b a s e d

J o n e s ’ s c o n v i c t i o n f

o r a s s a u l t o n t h e f

a c t t h a t J o n e s w i e l d e d a b l a d e

. T h e t r i a l j u d g e r e a s o n e d

t h a t “ wh en w e ap ons are int r oduced into the situation

, that m eets the definitio n of an assault,

placin g somebod y in a reasonable fear of danger of bodily harm. ” T h e r e f o r e

, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t

d i d n o t b a s e i t s d e c i s i o n t h a t J o n e s w a s g u i l t y o f a s s a u l t o n t h e u l t i m a t e f a c t t h a t d e t e r m i n e d

J o n e s ’ s a c q u i t t a l o f b r a n d i s h i n g a m a c h e t e i n t h e g e n e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t

. I n s t e a d

, i t b a s e d i t s

d e c i s i o n o n p r o p e r l y c o n s i d e r e d s u b s i d i a r y f a c t s

.- 8

-

C o n s e q u e n t l y

, i t w a s n o t e rr o r f o r t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t t o r e

j e c t J o n e s ’ s c l a i m t h a t i s s u e

p r e c l u s i o n p r e v e n t e d t h e C o m m o n w e a l t h f r o m introducing evidenc e t h a t J o n e s i n t e n t i o n a l l y

w i e l d e d a k n i f

e a n d c r e a t e d r e a s o n a b l e f e a r i n t h e m i n d s o f T o l e r a n d F r i e r s o n

.

I I I

. C O N C L U S I O N

I n s h o r t

, a s s a u l t i s n o t a l e s s e r

- i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e o f b r a n d i s h i n g a m a c h e t e u n d e r t h e

U n i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e m e C o u r t ’ s B l o c k b u r g e r t e s t

. W h e n t h e e l e m e n t s o f b o t h o f f e n s e s a r e

v i e w e d i n t h e a b s t r a c t

, e a c h o f f e n s e r e q u i r e s t h e C o m m o n w e a l t h t o p r o v e a n e l e m e n t w h i c h t h e

o t h e r o f f e n s e d o e s n o t r e q u i r e t o b e p r o v e n

. C o n s e q u e n t l y

, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t d i d n o t e rr i n t h i s

c a s e i n f i n d i n g t h a t J o n e s c o u l d b e c o n v i c t e d o f a s s a u l t i n h i s t r i a l d e n o v o a f t e r t h e g e n e r a l

d i s t r i c t c o u r t a c q u i t t e d h i m o f b r a n d i s h i n g a m a c h e t e

. F u r t h e r m o r e

, t h e d o c t r i n e o f i s s u e

p r e c l u s i o n d i d n o t p r e v e n t t h e C o m m o n w e a l t h f r o m introducing eviden ce t h a t J o n e s i n t e n t i o n a l l y

w i e l d e d a k n i f

e a n d c r e a t e d r e a s o n a b l e f e a r i n t h e m i n d s o f t h e v i c t i m s b e c a u s e t h a t s p e c i f i c f a c t

w a s n o t t h e b a s i s o f J o n e s ’ s p r i o r a c q u i t t a l

. T h e r e f o r e

, f o r a l l o f t h e s e r e a s o n s

, w e a f f i r m t h e

c i r c u i t c o u r t a n d r e m a n d t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t f o r t h e l i m i t e d p u rp o s e f

o r i t t o c o r r e c t a s c r i v e n e r ’ s

e r r o r i n t h e conviction order and f i n a l sentencing o r d e r

. 1 S e e C o d e § 8

. 0 1

- 4 2 8 ( B )

.

A f f i r m e d a n d r e m a n d e d

.

1 The October 1, 2021 conviction order and the D ecember 2, 2021 final order o f the

Circu it Court of Henrico County descr ibe Jon e s ’ s conviction as “ assault and batter (M) ” under

Code § 18.2

- 57. However, the transcript at the trial de novo and the t ran scr ipt at the sente ncing

he ar ing clearly show that Jones was only c onvicted of the m isdemeanor of assau lt under Code

§ 18.2

- 57

— not misdemeanor assault and battery . At Jones ’ s trial de novo in the circuit court and

at Jones ’ s sentencing hearing, the circuit c ourt noted tha t Jon es “ was guilty of the assault ” an d

t hat “ t his c a se came on appeal by th e D efendant of the assault

. ” There fore, we remand this case

t o the circuit court solely for correction of the scrivener ’ s error in t he conviction order and the

final order so that they re flect the proper d escri pt ion of Jo nes ’ s convict ion for as sa ult . Code

§ 8.0 1

- 428(B) ; see also Col eman v. Commonwealth , 51 Va. App. 284, 286 n. 1 (2008).