Case Name: John Fitzgerald Gaston v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Court: Supreme Court of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 2003-09-12
Citations: 266 Va. 175
Docket Number: Record No. 022303
Parties: John Fitzgerald Gaston v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 266
Pages: 175–176

Head Matter:
John Fitzgerald Gaston v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Record No. 022303
September 12, 2003
Present: Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Agee, JJ., and Stephenson, SJ.
Gordon A. Zedd for appellant.
Leah A. Darron, Assistant Attorney General (Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
John Fitzgerald Gaston filed a motion in the Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk, pursuant to Code § 19.2-327.1, seeking post-trial scientific analysis of certain evidence. Following a hearing, the circuit court denied Gaston's motion. On February 5, 2003, we awarded Gaston this appeal and also directed the parties to brief the issue "whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal." We conclude that this Court does not have jurisdiction.
Subsection G of Code § 19.2-327.1 expressly states, in pertinent part, that "[a]n action under this section . . . shall not form the basis for relief in any habeas corpus proceeding or any other appeal." When a statute is clear and unambiguous, a court may look only to the words used in the statute to ascertain its meaning and intent. Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Quillian, 264 Va. 656, 665, 571 S.E.2d 122, 126 (2002); Harrison & Bates, Inc. v. Featherstone Assoc., 253 Va. 364, 368, 484 S.E.2d 883, 885 (1997). The language used in Code § 19.2-327.1(G) is clear and unambiguous and means that a circuit court's ruling under Code § 19.2-327.1 is unappealable. Consequently, we will dismiss Gaston's appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Appeal dismissed.