Title: Weathers v. Commonwealth
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 010471
State: Virginia
Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court
Date: November 2, 2001

PRESENT: Carrico, C.J., Lacy, Hassell, Koontz, Kinser, and 
Lemons, JJ., and Compton, S.J. 
 
PHILLIP WEATHERS  
 
OPINION BY 
SENIOR JUSTICE A. CHRISTIAN COMPTON 
v.  Record No. 010471 
 
November 2, 2001 
 
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 
 
 
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 
 
 
 
In this criminal appeal, the sole question is whether the 
Court of Appeals of Virginia correctly affirmed a trial court's 
action in admitting evidence of defendant's prior convictions. 
 
Indicted in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County for 
distribution of cocaine, defendant Phillip Weathers was found 
guilty by a jury.  The bifurcated trial proceeded immediately to 
the sentencing phase.  During that phase, over defendant's 
objection, the trial court admitted evidence of defendant's 
three prior felony convictions. 
 
Subsequently, confirming the jury's verdict of guilty, the 
trial court sentenced defendant to 11 years confinement with 
three years suspended.  Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals 
affirmed the conviction in an unpublished opinion.  Weathers v. 
Commonwealth, Record No. 0987-00-4 (Jan. 30, 2001).  We awarded 
defendant this appeal, limited to consideration of the foregoing 
question. 
 
Code § 19.2-295.1 states in pertinent part: 
 
"The Commonwealth shall provide to the defendant fourteen 
days prior to trial notice of its intention to introduce 
evidence of the defendant's prior criminal convictions 
. . . Prior to commencement of the trial, the Commonwealth 
shall provide to the defendant photocopies of certified 
copies of the defendant's prior criminal convictions which 
it intends to introduce at sentencing." 
 
 
In the present case, more than 14 days prior to trial, the 
prosecution notified defendant of its intention to introduce 
evidence of defendant's three prior criminal convictions.  
During the guilt phase of the trial, and after the jury had 
begun deliberations, the prosecutor provided defendant with 
photocopies of certified copies of the prior convictions, which 
eventually were received in evidence. 
 
On appeal, defendant concedes that the prosecutor complied 
with the statutory 14-day notice requirement.  He contends, 
however, that the prosecutor failed to comply strictly with the 
statutory copying requirement because he was not furnished with 
the photocopies "prior to commencement of trial."  Therefore, 
defendant argues, evidence of his prior convictions should not 
have been admitted, and the Court of Appeals erred in affirming 
the trial court's action.  We do not agree. 
 
The Court of Appeals ruled that defendant was given "proper 
notice" of the prosecutor's intention to rely on the prior 
convictions at sentencing, and that defendant failed to show his 
ability to dispute these convictions "was prejudiced."  Slip op. 
at 7.  Continuing, the court said that because the prosecutor 
 
2
"substantially complied" with Code § 19.2-295.1 and defendant 
had "sufficient notice," the trial court correctly admitted the 
convictions into evidence at sentencing.  Id.
 
The Court of Appeals relied upon its decision in Lebedun v. 
Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 697, 501 S.E.2d 427 (1998).  In that 
case, the court said that the foregoing statute is "procedural 
in nature" and "does not convey any substantive right."  Id. at 
717, 501 S.E.2d at 437.  Citing Commonwealth v. Rafferty, 241 
Va. 319, 324, 402 S.E.2d 17, 20 (1991), the court determined 
that the statute's notice provisions are "merely directory," and 
precise compliance was not essential to the validity of the 
proceedings.  Lebedun, 27 Va. App. at 717, 501 S.E.2d at 437. 
 
As the Attorney General argues, the General Assembly has 
acquiesced in the 1998 Lebedun decision because it amended the 
statute in 2001 (Acts 2001, ch. 389) but did not abrogate the 
Lebedun holding.  When the General Assembly acts in an area in 
which one of its appellate courts already has spoken, it is 
presumed to know the law as the court has stated it and to 
acquiesce therein, and if the legislature intends to countermand 
such appellate decision it must do so explicitly.  See Pitts v. 
United States of America, 242 Va. 254, 261 n.2, 408 S.E.2d 901, 
905 n.2 (1991). 
 
Accordingly, we hold that, although the statute means what 
it says and its directions should be followed, there has been 
 
3
substantial compliance with it in this case, and evidence of the 
prior convictions was properly admitted, there having been no 
showing of prejudice to the defendant.  Indeed, defense counsel 
stated to the trial court when the issue was being discussed, 
"I'm conceding that it didn't prejudice the Defendant.  I'm just 
relying on the statute." 
 
Consequently, the Court of Appeals did not err and its 
judgment will be 
Affirmed. 
 
4