Title: Patterson v. Commonwealth
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 001798
State: Virginia
Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court
Date: September 14, 2001

Present:  All the Justices 
 
JAMES EARL PATTERSON 
 
v.  Record No. 001798     OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY 
 
 
 
September 14, 2001 
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY 
James F. D'Alton, Jr., Judge 
 
 
James Earl Patterson received a death sentence upon a 
plea of guilty to a charge of capital murder in the commission 
of a rape, Code § 18.2-31(5), in the death of Joyce Sneed 
Aldridge.1  Although Patterson has waived his right of appeal, 
Code § 17.1-313 mandates that we review the imposition of the 
death sentence.  We must consider and determine whether the 
sentence of death was imposed "under the influence of passion, 
prejudice or any other arbitrary factor," and whether the 
sentence is "excessive or disproportionate to the penalty 
imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the 
defendant."  Code § 17.1-313(C)(1) and (C)(2). 
BACKGROUND 
 
On October 11, 1987, the Prince George County Police 
Department received a telephone call at approximately 11:35 
                     
1 Patterson also pled guilty to charges of abduction with 
intent to defile, Code § 18.2-48, and rape, Code § 18.2-61, 
and entered an "Alford plea," North Carolina v. Alford, 400 
U.S. 25 (1970), to a charge of forcible sodomy, Code § 18.2-
67.1.  He was sentenced to consecutive terms of life 
imprisonment for the abduction and sodomy convictions.  
Patterson has not appealed those convictions.  
p.m. from a person identifying herself as Joyce Aldridge.  Ms. 
Aldridge stated that she had been raped and stabbed.  When the 
police arrived at Ms. Aldridge's home, they found the front 
door ajar and a screen "knocked out" of the bathroom window at 
the rear of the house.  The officers announced themselves and, 
when there was no reply, they entered the house.  They found 
Ms. Aldridge's partially clothed body on the floor of the 
bathroom.  Her dress had been ripped from the neck, and cloth 
ligatures, cut from bedding in the room, remained tied to her 
right wrist.  She had been stabbed multiple times and could 
not be resuscitated by the emergency medical crew.  
 
The police discovered signs of a struggle in the kitchen 
of the home with a chair knocked over, a drawer containing 
knives left open, and Ms. Aldridge's eyeglasses on the floor.  
The door to Ms. Aldridge's bedroom had been kicked open and 
footprints were found on the door.  Footprints of the same 
type were found in the blood on the floor of the bedroom.  The 
contents of Ms. Aldridge's purse had been dumped on the floor, 
dresser drawers were open and ransacked, and the nightstand 
had been knocked over.  There was a large amount of blood on 
the bed and pillows and "[c]ast-off" blood spatters were on 
the wall next to the bathroom.  The telephone cord had been 
pulled from the wall and the doorknob to the bathroom door had 
been pulled off the door.  Ms. Aldridge's blood was found on 
 
2
the telephone, the bathroom doorknob, and the latch on the 
window screen found in the backyard.  These conditions 
indicated that she had attempted to flee her attacker by 
escaping through the window in the bathroom. 
 
The medical examiner found seventeen stab wounds.  Eight 
of the wounds were to Ms. Aldridge's neck, four to her upper 
back, one in her chest and several clustered in her abdominal 
area.  The wounds ranged in depth from two to six inches.  Two 
stab wounds to her aorta were fatal.  The medical examiner 
also found a number of defensive wounds. 
 
Seminal fluid was recovered from the victim's rectum and 
vagina and a semen stain was found on the bed.  This evidence 
was preserved for testing.  However, the perpetrator of the 
crime was not identified until over ten years later, when in 
1998, the evidence was resubmitted to the Virginia DNA 
Laboratory.  The subsequent testing yielded a "cold hit" – a 
match with a DNA profile maintained by the Virginia DNA Data 
Bank.  The tested DNA matched that of James Earl Patterson who 
was serving a twenty-five year sentence at the Greensville 
Correctional Center for a rape unrelated to the rape of Ms. 
Aldridge. 
 
The police obtained a search warrant for a fresh sample 
of Patterson's blood and additional testing confirmed that the 
DNA material found at Ms. Aldridge's house and that of the 
 
3
defendant were consistent.  The probability of finding someone 
else with the same DNA profile was less than 1 in 5.5 billion.  
When confronted with this information by the police, Patterson 
denied knowing Ms. Aldridge or ever being in her house. 
 
In March 2000, Patterson agreed to discuss the crime with 
one of the police officers who had been involved in the 
Aldridge investigation if an agreement could be reached 
regarding his ability to see his family at the prison.  After 
the family visit was arranged, Patterson confessed to raping 
and murdering Ms. Aldridge.  Patterson said he knew Ms. 
Aldridge and went to her home on October 11, 1987 to steal 
money for drugs.  He had planned to enter through a basement 
window but the window was locked.  While he was looking for a 
utility knife he had dropped in the yard, Ms. Aldridge let her 
dog out in the yard.  Patterson went to the door and asked Ms. 
Aldridge if he could borrow a flashlight on the pretext of 
needing it to search for lost car keys.  When Ms. Aldridge 
opened the door, he forced his way into the house, kicked the 
door shut and demanded her pocketbook.  He pushed her to the 
bedroom to get the purse.  When the purse contained only 
coins, Patterson became "even more violent."  After tying her 
hands behind her back with strips cut from the bed linen, he 
raped her. 
 
4
 
Patterson went to the kitchen looking for a knife because 
he "wasn't going to leave any witnesses behind."  He found a 
knife and stabbed Ms. Aldridge three times in the abdomen. 
 
Patterson went back outside to find the lost utility 
knife, but reentered the house to make sure "she's gone."  He 
kicked in the bedroom door which was shut and saw a telephone 
cord leading to the bathroom.  He forced the bathroom door 
open and Ms. Aldridge came out.  Patterson "hit[] her with the 
knife 4 or 5 times."  After she "went down the wall," he left 
by way of the front door. 
 
Prior to the entry of the guilty pleas, Patterson was 
examined by two psychologists, both of whom determined that 
Patterson was competent to tender a guilty plea and to make 
his own decisions in the case.  Against the advice of counsel, 
Patterson entered the guilty plea.  The trial court found 
Patterson guilty of capital murder and ordered a pre-sentence 
report. 
 
At the sentencing hearing, the Commonwealth asserted that 
the killing of Ms. Aldridge was vile in that it involved 
torture, depravity of mind, and aggravated battery.  In 
support of this contention, the Commonwealth relied on the 
testimony given at the guilt phase, that the victim did not 
die instantaneously, that the knife attack was carried out in 
a "savage[,] methodical manner," and that many more stab 
 
5
wounds were inflicted than necessary to accomplish the murder 
of the victim.  Chabrol v. Commonwealth, 245 Va. 327, 335, 427 
S.E.2d 374, 378 (1993); Hoke v. Commonwealth, 237 Va. 303, 
316, 377 S.E.2d 595, 603, cert. denied, 491 U.S. 910 (1989). 
 
The Commonwealth also asserted that Patterson would be a 
future danger to society.  In support of this position, the 
Commonwealth presented evidence of felony convictions for rape 
and grand larceny based on a 1988 incident in which Patterson 
asked two women for a ride home from a party.  When the driver 
exited the car, Patterson shoved her to the ground, got back 
in the car, and broke the handle of the passenger door to trap 
the other woman in the car.  Patterson "punched" the passenger 
in the face, drove the car to another location, and then raped 
her.  According to the Commonwealth, these crimes, committed 
after the rape and murder of Ms. Aldridge, along with the 
defendant's extensive juvenile record and fourteen instances 
of institutional offenses, including fighting, assault, and 
possession of drugs and intoxicants, support the conclusion 
that Patterson is a continuing danger to society. 
 
Patterson refused to present evidence in mitigation of 
his sentence and instructed his attorney not to do so.  In 
exercising his right of elocution, Patterson expressed his 
sorrow and remorse for his actions and requested a sentence of 
death, stating that if he received a life sentence he could 
 
6
not promise that "sometime that I may not spark out and ruin 
more lives."  In imposing the death sentence, the trial court 
found that the aggravating factors of vileness in the 
commission of the crime and of future dangerousness to society 
were both supported by the evidence. 
 
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-313(C), we must consider "any 
errors in the trial enumerated by appeal" in any case where a 
sentence of death is imposed.  Accordingly, the trial court is 
required to forward the trial record of such a case to this 
Court where an appeal of right will be heard.  Code § 17.1-
313(B).  On October 16, 2000, Patterson through counsel filed 
a Motion Not to Pursue Appeal with this Court.  By order dated 
November 15, 2000, this Court ordered the matter returned to 
the trial court for a determination whether Patterson's 
decision not to appeal was made voluntarily and intelligently. 
 
At a competency hearing held on January 4, 2001 in 
accordance with this Court's order, Patterson signed a waiver 
under oath, stating he did not want his case reviewed for "any 
alleged errors of the trial" and waived his right "to file an 
opening brief and to have my attorney present any oral 
arguments or to otherwise in any manner pursue appellate 
review."  The trial court entered an order finding that 
Patterson knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his 
right to appeal. 
 
7
DISCUSSION 
 
While a defendant may waive his rights of appellate 
review and instruct his attorneys to refrain from seeking a 
commutation of his death sentence, a defendant may not waive 
the review process mandated by Code § 17.1-313(C).  "[T]he 
purpose of the review process is to assure the fair and proper 
application of the death penalty statutes in this Commonwealth 
and to instill public confidence in the administration of 
justice."  Akers v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 358, 364, 535 S.E.2d 
674, 677 (2000).  Accordingly, pursuant to our order of 
November 15, 2000, Patterson's counsel has filed a brief 
limited to the issues we must consider pursuant to Code 
§ 17.1-313(C) and participates in this process as an officer 
of the Court.  Id.  
 
We first consider whether the death sentence in this case 
"was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice or any 
other arbitrary factor."  Code § 17.1-313(C)(1).  This crime 
was brutally executed.  The victim was bound, raped, and then 
repeatedly stabbed so that there would be no witness to the 
crime.  The evidence shows that the victim apparently 
attempted to survive her attack by hiding in the bathroom, 
placing a call to the police, and then, when her attacker 
returned, trying to escape out a rear window in the bathroom.  
We find no indication in the record that, in imposing the 
 
8
death sentence for these acts, the trial court's sentencing 
decision was influenced by passion, prejudice, or any 
arbitrary factor, but rather we find that it was based 
entirely upon a reasonable evaluation of the evidence. 
 
We next focus our evaluation on whether the sentence of 
death in this case is "excessive or disproportionate to the 
penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime 
and the defendant."  Code § 17.1-313(C)(2).  We have 
accumulated the records of all capital murder cases reviewed 
by this Court.  Code § 17.1-313(E).  The records include not 
only those capital murder cases in which the death penalty was 
imposed, but also those in which the trial court or jury 
imposed a life sentence and the defendant petitioned this 
Court for an appeal. 
 
In making this proportionality review, we have focused 
specifically on cases in which the facts are similar to those 
of this case – where the predicate offense is rape and the 
death sentence was imposed upon a finding that both 
aggravating factors, vileness and future dangerousness, were 
present.  We conclude that, in considering both the crime and 
the defendant, Patterson's sentence is neither excessive nor 
disproportionate to the penalties imposed by other sentencing 
bodies in the Commonwealth for comparable acts.  See, e.g., 
Payne v. Commonwealth, 257 Va. 216, 509 S.E.2d 293 
 
9
(1999) (forced entry into victim's home; robbery, rape, and 
murder of excessive beating with a hammer); Beck v. 
Commonwealth, 253 Va. 373, 484 S.E.2d 898 (1997) (beat, raped, 
and murdered victim in her home; sentence imposed upon a plea 
of guilty); Williams v. Commonwealth, 248 Va. 528, 450 S.E.2d 
365 (1994) (forced entry into victim's home and committed 
robbery, rape, murder, and arson); Hoke, 237 Va. 303, 377 
S.E.2d 595 (1989) (victim bound, stabbed, raped, and murdered 
in home); Mason v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 1091, 254 S.E.2d 116 
(1979) (beat, tortured, raped, and murdered victim in her 
home; sentence imposed upon a guilty plea). 
 
Having found no error below and perceiving no other 
reason to commute or set aside the sentence of death, we will 
affirm the judgment of the trial court. 
Affirmed.
 
10