Title: Overbey v. Commonwealth
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 050478
State: Virginia
Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court
Date: January 13, 2006

Present: Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Agee, 
JJ., and Carrico, S.J. 
 
ROBERT OVERBEY, III 
 
 
 
OPINION BY 
v.  Record No. 050478 
SENIOR JUSTICE HARRY L. CARRICO 
 
January 13, 2006 
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINA 
 
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 
 
 
This appeal involves the indictment and conviction of the 
defendant, Robert Overbey, III, on a charge of possession of a 
firearm by a convicted felon.  Code § 18.2-308.2.  The controlling 
question for decision is whether the Commonwealth proved the 
defendant had been previously convicted of a felony as required by 
subsection (A)(i) of that statute.  Finding that the Commonwealth 
failed to prove this necessary element of the crime, we will reverse. 
 
At the defendant’s trial on the weapons charge, the Commonwealth 
introduced into evidence a copy of a petition filed on October 24, 
1996, in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court of the 
City of Hampton (the juvenile court).  Attached to the petition in 
the record are two pages of notes relating to the proceedings in the 
juvenile court.  These papers show that the defendant, then 17 years 
of age, was charged with two offenses, the felony of burglary with 
the intent to commit larceny and the misdemeanor of petit larceny 
arising out of the same incident.  The signature of the judge of the 
juvenile court appears after each day’s entry on the notes.  At the 
 
 
top of each page, both the burglary and the larceny charges are 
listed, with the respective case number of each charge. 
 
An entry in the notes for February 20, 1997, states that the 
defendant is “now 18 yrs of age & atty is prepared to proceed w/o a 
parent being present,” that “[p]lea [of] guilty [and] stip[ulated] 
evid[ence] suff[icient] to convict,” and that “[b]ased on the plea of 
guilty, stip[ulation] & summary of evid[ence], Ct finds def guilty 
and refer for PO report.”  After the probation officer’s report was 
received, the defendant was sentenced pursuant to Code § 16.1-284 to 
12 months in jail, suspended for two years on condition that he “be 
of good behavior & complete 50 hours in the CDI program." 
 
At his trial on the weapons charge, the defendant did not object 
to the introduction of the juvenile court petition and the attached 
notes.  He did, however, strenuously argue that the “notes are 
ambiguous” and insufficient to show he had been previously convicted 
of a felony. 
 
He makes the same argument here.  He points out that the 
paperwork submitted by the Commonwealth made reference to two 
charges, one for the felony of burglary and the other for the 
misdemeanor of petit larceny, and the notes listed both charges and 
recited the case number for each.  The defendant states that the 
notes show he entered a plea of guilty and stipulated the evidence, 
but the plea was in the singular and the notes failed to specify to 
what offense he pled guilty or what evidence he stipulated.  The 
 
 
defendant says he “may have pled guilty to the burglary, or he may 
have pled guilty to the petty larceny, or conceivably he may have 
pled guilty to both offenses.”  The defendant concludes that “[i]t is 
impossible to say with certainty to what [he] pled guilty” or of what 
offense he was convicted. 
 
Responding, the Commonwealth says it is clear the defendant was 
charged with the felony of burglary in the juvenile petition and “it 
is just as clear that the court accepted a guilty plea to both the 
burglary charge and the petit larceny charge based on the handwritten 
pages,” and nothing suggests “the court proceeded on anything other 
than both the original charges.”  Continuing, the Commonwealth states 
that “[a]lthough the notes reflect that the defendant was found 
guilty ‘based on the plea of guilty,’ rather than ‘pleas of guilty,’ 
the use of the singular noun in no way suggests that one charge was 
dismissed or nolle prossed.”  Furthermore, says the Commonwealth, 
“the fact that there is one sentence in no way suggests that the 
defendant was only convicted of one crime” since “it is clear from 
the language of Code §16.1-284 that the juvenile court was well 
within its province to sentence the defendant to twelve months in 
jail, suspended, for both the burglary and the petit larceny.”1 
                     
 
1 Code § 16.1-284 provides that “[w]hen the juvenile court 
sentences an adult who has committed, before attaining the age of 
eighteen, an offense which would be a crime if committed by an adult, 
the court may impose penalties which are authorized to be imposed on 
adults for such violations, not to exceed the punishment for a Class 
1 misdemeanor for a single offense or multiple offenses.”  The 
 
 
 
We agree with the defendant that the language of the notes is 
ambiguous.  “Language is ambiguous when it may be understood in more 
than one way, or simultaneously refers to two or more things.  If the 
language is difficult to comprehend, is of doubtful import, or lacks 
clearness and definiteness, an ambiguity exists.”  Supinger v. 
Stakes, 255 Va. 198, 205, 495 S.E.2d 813, 817 (1998) (citation and 
inner quotation marks omitted).  Furthermore, “[w]hen the fact of a 
prior conviction is an element of a charged offense, the burden is on 
the Commonwealth to prove that prior conviction beyond a reasonable 
doubt,” and “[a] court may not engage in conjecture or surmise in 
determining the offense for which a defendant was convicted.”  Palmer 
v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 203, 207, 609 S.E.2d 308, 310 (2005). 
 
Here, the notes of the juvenile court judge simultaneously refer 
to two or more things, i.e., burglary and petit larceny, and the 
language can be understood to mean that the defendant pled guilty to 
burglary alone, or that he pled guilty to petit larceny alone, or 
that he pled guilty to both offenses.  Hence, the language of the 
notes is of doubtful import and is lacking in clearness and 
definiteness.  In these circumstances, the trial court had to engage 
in pure conjecture or surmise to determine, as the Commonwealth 
contends, that the defendant pled guilty to both burglary and petit 
                                                                       
punishment for a Class 1 misdemeanor, as prescribed by Code § 18.2-
11(a), is confinement in jail for not more than twelve months and a 
fine of not more than $2,500, either or both. 
 
 
larceny.  The trial court thus erred in concluding the Commonwealth 
proved the necessary element of a prior felony conviction. 
 
Because the Commonwealth failed to prove that the defendant had 
been previously convicted of a felony, we will reverse the judgment 
of the trial court and enter final judgment here dismissing the 
defendant’s indictment for possession of a firearm by a convicted 
felon.2  
Reversed and final judgment. 
                     
 
2 In view of this disposition, we need not consider the 
defendant’s additional claim that the “document from the juvenile 
court was [not] in fact an order of conviction.”