Title: Smith v. Commonwealth
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 101357
State: Virginia
Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court
Date: March 4, 2011

Present:  Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, and Millette, JJ., and 
Lacy and Koontz, S.JJ.∗ 
 
DAVID SMITH 
 
v.  Record No. 101357 
 
 
OPINION BY SENIOR JUSTICE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    ELIZABETH B. LACY 
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA  
 
      MARCH 4, 2011 
 
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 
 
In this case we consider whether dismissal is the proper 
disposition of an appeal in which a transcript necessary for 
resolution of the issue raised on appeal was not timely filed. 
BACKGROUND 
 
 
On October 4, 2007, David Smith was indicted by the Grand 
Jury in the Circuit Court of the City of Portsmouth for one 
count of abduction with intent to defile, Code §§ 18.2-48 and 
18.2-10, three counts of forcible sodomy, Code § 18.2-67.1, four 
counts of use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, Code 
§ 18.2-53.1, and one count of conspiracy, Code §§ 18.2-22 and 
18.2-10.  Following a hearing, the trial court denied Smith’s 
motion to suppress certain evidence.  Smith then entered into a 
conditional plea agreement in which he pled guilty to one count 
of simple abduction, Code § 18.2-47(A), and one count of 
forcible sodomy, Code § 18.2-67.1, reserving the right to appeal 
the trial court’s denial of his suppression motion.  The trial 
                     
∗ Justice Koontz presided and participated in the hearing 
and decision of this case prior to the effective date of his 
retirement on February 1, 2011; Justice Kinser was sworn in as 
Chief Justice on February 1, 2011.  
court accepted the plea agreement, sentenced Smith to concurrent 
terms of five years’ imprisonment for each offense with one year 
and four months suspended from each sentence and upon the 
Commonwealth’s motion, entered an order of nolle prosequi for 
the remaining indictments. 
 
Smith filed a timely appeal to the Court of Appeals  
assigning error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to 
suppress.  However, the transcript of the suppression hearing 
was not filed in the circuit court until eight days beyond the 
time prescribed by Rule 5A:8.  The Court of Appeals notified 
Smith’s counsel that the transcript of the suppression hearing 
was not timely filed.  In response, Smith filed a motion to 
dismiss his appeal for failure to file a necessary and 
indispensable transcript arguing that the failure to file the 
transcript was a jurisdictional defect requiring dismissal.1  
Following oral arguments, a majority of a panel of the Court of 
Appeals denied Smith’s motion to dismiss, determined that Smith 
waived the issue he presented on appeal because he failed to 
                     
1 Smith also asserted that a disposition other than 
dismissal would have the collateral effect of denying him his 
statutory remedy for obtaining a belated appeal under Code 
§ 19.2-321.1 because that remedy is based on the “dismissal” of 
an appeal for failure to comply with certain procedural 
requirements.  The interpretation of Code § 19.2-321.1 was not 
at issue in the Court of Appeals nor is it at issue here; 
however, we note that the disposition of this case does not 
impact Smith’s ability to pursue a belated appeal through the 
habeas corpus process. 
 
2
timely file a transcript which was indispensable to the 
resolution of that issue, and, consequently, affirmed Smith’s 
convictions.  Smith v. Commonwealth, 56 Va. App. 351, 363, 693 
S.E.2d 765, 771 (2010).  Smith appealed, asserting that the 
Court of Appeals erred in affirming his convictions rather than 
dismissing his appeal. 
DISCUSSION 
Smith argues that dismissing the appeal is the correct 
disposition in this case because the lack of an indispensable 
transcript prevented the appellate court from acting on the 
appeal and therefore the court was without jurisdiction to 
consider the appeal.  If a court does not have jurisdiction over 
an appeal, Smith asserts, the appeal must be dismissed.  Smith 
also argues that dismissal of his appeal for failure to file an 
indispensable transcript is consistent with precedent of this 
Court and the Court of Appeals.  See e.g., Dudley v. Florence 
Drug Co., 204 Va. 533, 535, 132 S.E.2d 465, 467 (1963); Smith v. 
Commonwealth, 32 Va. App. 766, 772, 531 S.E.2d 11, 14-15 (2000).  
We agree with Smith that if an appellate court does not have 
jurisdiction over an appeal, the appeal must be dismissed.  
However, we disagree with Smith both as to his characterization 
of the jurisdiction of an appellate court and his reliance on 
prior cases of this Court and the Court of Appeals as binding 
authority for the issue presented in this appeal. 
 
3
The term jurisdiction is “a word of many, too many, 
meanings.”  Ghameshlouy v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 379, 388, 689 
S.E.2d 698, 702 (2010) (internal quotation marks and citations 
omitted).  While the term often is used to refer generally to a 
court’s authority and ability to exercise control over a case, 
there are different types of jurisdiction encompassing separate 
and distinct legal concepts.  Subject matter jurisdiction is the 
authority vested in a court by constitution or statute to 
adjudicate certain categories of disputes.  Morrison v. Bestler, 
239 Va. 166, 169, 387 S.E.2d 753, 755 (1990).  Without this type 
of jurisdiction a court’s action is a nullity and is subject to 
challenge at any time.  Id. at 170, 387 S.E.2d at 755-56.  
Subject matter jurisdiction standing alone is, however, 
only the “potential” jurisdiction of a court over the subject 
matter.  The court acquires the “active” jurisdiction to 
adjudicate a matter only when certain additional elements are 
present.  Ghameshlouy, 279 Va. at 388-89, 689 S.E.2d at 702-03.  
Some of the other elements governing the ability of a court to 
exercise its subject matter jurisdiction in a particular case 
are contained in the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia 
prescribed and adopted by this Court pursuant to Code § 8.01-3.  
In Ghameshlouy, we identified compliance with the appellate rule 
requiring the timely filing of a notice of appeal, Rule 5A:6, as 
an element which must be present to transform an appellate 
 
4
court’s potential jurisdiction to proceed to judgment into 
active jurisdiction to do so.  Id. at 390-91, 689 S.E.2d at 703-
04.  This rule demands mandatory compliance and is “a 
prerequisite to an appellate court's obtaining and exercising 
jurisdiction over a case.”  Id. at 391, 689 S.E.2d at 704.  
Similarly, noncompliance with the rule involving the timely 
filing of a petition for appeal and including assignments of 
error in that petition deprive the appellate court of active 
jurisdiction over the appeal.  Rule 5:17.  Not all procedural 
rules, however, are treated as mandatory or jurisdictional, 
carrying a consequence of dismissal for noncompliance.  Jay v. 
Commonwealth, 275 Va. 510, 659 S.E.2d 311 (2008), involved the 
dismissal of an appeal by the Court of Appeals for noncompliance 
with the rule requiring presentation of arguments on brief, Rule 
5A:20(e).  We reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, holding 
that, by dismissing the appeal rather than denying it, the Court 
of Appeals erroneously rendered the rule jurisdictional.  Id. at 
517, 659 S.E.2d at 315.  Noncompliance with that rule may have 
prevented the Court of Appeals from resolving the issue due to 
waiver, but it did not defeat the active jurisdiction of the 
Court of Appeals to proceed to judgment in the appeal.  
In our view, the timely filing requirement of Rule 5A:8, 
like the rule at issue in Jay, is not a mandatory procedural 
rule that is necessary to enable the potential jurisdiction of 
 
5
the appellate court to become active jurisdiction and proceed to 
a valid decree or disposition.  The content and application of 
Rule 5A:8 demonstrates that there is no requirement that a 
transcript be filed in every appeal.  The plain language of the 
rule does not require the filing of a transcript in order to 
proceed with an appeal.  Not only does the rule allow the filing 
of a statement of facts in place of a transcript, cases may 
often be decided without the filing of a transcript.  Haugen v. 
Shenandoah Valley Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 274 Va. 27, 32, 645 
S.E.2d 261, 264 (2007); City of Richmond v. Randall, 215 Va. 
506, 508, 211 S.E.2d 56, 58 (1975); Smyth v. Midgett, 199 Va. 
727, 729, 101 S.E.2d 575, 577-78 (1958).  Elements required to 
ripen the appellate court’s potential jurisdiction into active 
jurisdiction are elements that must be applicable in every 
appeal; they cannot be selectively applied depending on the 
issues presented in the appeal.   
Furthermore, many cases contain issues that are not 
resolved on the merits in the appeal because of noncompliance 
with the appellate rules, including the rule relating to the 
filing of transcripts.  Examples include the failure to present 
argument on an assigned error, the failure to proffer certain 
excluded testimony that is the subject of an appeal, or the 
failure to include a rejected jury instruction.  In these 
circumstances, we consider the issue waived and resolve the case 
 
6
on the basis of those issues properly presented to us.  See 
e.g., Andrews v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 231, 252, 699 S.E.2d 237, 
249 (2010); Commonwealth Transp. Comm’r v. Target Corp., 274 Va. 
341, 348, 650 S.E.2d 92, 96 (2007); Wyche v. Commonwealth, 218 
Va. 839, 842, 241 S.E.2d 772, 774 (1978); Paddock v. Mason, 187 
Va. 809, 812, 48 S.E.2d 199, 200 (1948).  We do not treat the 
absence of these elements as defeating our ability to exercise 
active jurisdiction over the appeal, even though they may 
preclude us from resolving the issue.  Indeed, included within 
appellate review of a case is consideration of whether an issue 
is defaulted or waived on appeal.  
Finally, Smith’s argument that his appeal should be 
dismissed because in prior cases the Court of Appeals and this 
Court have dismissed appeals for failure to timely file an 
indispensable transcript is unpersuasive.  There is no question 
that there are cases from this Court and the Court of Appeals 
that have referred to or directed the dismissal of an appeal 
because a necessary transcript was not properly before the 
court.  See e.g., Towler v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 533, 535, 221 
S.E.2d 119, 121 (1976); Fearon v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 256, 257 
176 S.E.2d 921, 922 (1970); Crum v. Udy, 206 Va. 880, 881, 146 
S.E.2d 878, 879 (1966); Dudley, 204 Va. at 535, 132 S.E.2d at 
467; Smith, 32 Va. App. at 772, 531 S.E.2d at 14-15; Williams v. 
Commonwealth, 7 Va. App. 516, 519, 375 S.E.2d 364, 366 (1988); 
 
7
Barrett v. Barrett, 1 Va. App. 378, 380, 339 S.E.2d 208, 209-10 
(1986).  However, these cases do not have precedential value or 
application in this case because the proper disposition of an 
appeal under the circumstances presented here was not an issue 
in any case Smith cites.  Furthermore, in other cases, the 
failure to file an indispensable transcript resulted in waiver 
of the issue associated with the transcript.  See e.g., Lloyd v. 
Kime, 275 Va. 98, 107-08 & n.*, 654 S.E.2d 563, 568-69 & n.* 
(2008); Woodfin v. Commonwealth, 236 Va. 89, 97-98, 372 S.E.2d 
377, 382 (1988); Lawrence v. Nelson, 200 Va. 597, 599, 106 
S.E.2d 618, 620 (1959); Shiembob v. Shiembob, 55 Va. App. 234, 
246, 685 S.E.2d 192, 198-99 (2009). 
In summary, the failure to timely file the transcript in 
this case did not deprive the Court of Appeals of its active 
jurisdiction to proceed to judgment in the appeal and there is 
no error in the Court of Appeals’ judgment affirming Smith’s 
convictions.  Smith waived his challenge to the trial court’s 
denial of his motion to suppress certain evidence because he 
failed to timely file a transcript necessary to resolve the 
issue.  Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the Court of 
Appeals. 
Affirmed. 
 
8