COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Elder and Annunziata 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

STEVEN JEROME JOHNSON 

v. Record No. 0917-94-2 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

 JUDGE ROSEMARIE ANNUNZIATA 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA OCTOBER 24, 1995 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND 

Jose R. Davila, Jr., Judge 

 Steven D. Benjamin (Betty Layne DesPortes; Steven D. 

Benjamin and Associates, on briefs), for appellant. 

 Eugene Murphy, Assistant Attorney General (James S. 

Gilmore, III, Attorney General; Robert B. Condon, 

Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

 

 Appellant, Steven Jerome Johnson, appeals his convictions 

for robbery and use of a firearm in the commission of a robbery 

on the ground that the Commonwealth failed to prosecute its case 

within the time limitations prescribed by Code § 19.2-243, 

relying on the last sentence of Code § 19.2-243 which provides 

that "the time during the pendency of any appeal in any appellate 

court shall not be included as applying to the provisions of this 

section."1

 Finding no reversible error, we affirm the 

convictions. 

 Johnson was arrested on charges of robbery and use of a 

firearm in the commission of a felony on December 17, 1991. A 

preliminary hearing was held on January 9, 1992, and the charges 

were certified to the circuit court. On April 27, 1992, he 

 was convicted of the two charges and judgment was entered. On 

appeal, this Court reversed and remanded the case for a new trial 

on December 14, 1993. 

 On March 11, 1994, Johnson filed a motion to dismiss the 

indictments for violation of his right to a speedy trial pursuant 

to Code § 19.2-243. The trial court denied the motion and 

Johnson entered a conditional plea of guilty, preserving his 

right to appeal the motion to dismiss. 

 1Although appellant relies on the relevant provision of the 

United States and Virginia Constitutions in support of his 

position on appeal, his failure to raise these grounds at the 

trial level precludes our consideration of them. Rule 5A:18. 

See Jacques v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 591, 593, 405 S.E.2d 

630, 631 (1991) (citing Rule 5A:18). 
- 3 - 

 This Court has held that Code § 19.2-243 is inapplicable to 

retrial following reversal on appeal. Morgan v. Commonwealth, 19 

 Va. App. 637, 453 S.E.2d 914 (1995). In Morgan, the defendant 

was re-tried following a reversal of his original conviction. 

Morgan, 19 Va. App. at 638, 453 S.E.2d at 914. Morgan argued 

that the reversal of his first conviction commenced a new running 

of the speedy trial statute, requiring that he be re-tried within 

five months. Id. at 639, 453 S.E.2d at 915. However, this Court 

held that "Code § 19.2-243 is inapplicable to retrial following 

reversal on appeal . . . ." Morgan, 19 Va. App. at 639, 453 

S.E.2d at 915. The Court stated: 

 Morgan's retrial, following reversal, was but 

an extension of that same proceeding, based 

upon the same indictment and process and 

following a regular, continuous order of 

proceedings. Thus, it is distinguishable 

from a new proceeding, based upon a new 

indictment and process, implicating a new 

speedy trial time frame. See Presley v. 

Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 348, 344 S.E.2d 195 

(1986). 

 Code § 19.2-243 requires the timely 

commencement of trial. It does not require 

that trial be concluded within the specified 

time. . . . Butts v. Commonwealth, 145 Va. 

800, 808, 133 S.E. 764, 766 (1926). See also

Howell v. Commonwealth, 186 Va. 894, 898, 45 

S.E.2d 165, 167 (1947). 

* * * * * * * 

 [W]e find direction in the language and 

structure of the statute. Code § 19.2-243 

addresses the commencement of trial, not the 

conclusion of proceedings. The enumerated 

exceptions to the statute's applicability 

address this requirement. The final 

paragraph of the statute serves the same 

purpose. It relates to appeals addressing 
- 4 - 

matters necessary to be resolved prior to the 

commencement of trial. 

Morgan, 19 Va. App. at 639-40, 453 S.E.2d at 915 

 We are bound by the principle of stare decisis to apply that 

ruling to this case. See Commonwealth v. Burns, 240 Va. 171, 

172, 395 S.E.2d 456, 457 (1990). The appellant's convictions are 

affirmed. 

Affirmed.