Opinion ID: 1058630
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Supreme Court of Virginia

Text: Upon appeal to this Court, McDonald assigns error as follows: Mr. McDonald assigns as error Judge Haley's decision denying his appeal, and specifically his findings that: 1. That Mr. McDonald did not have standing to mount a facial attack on the constitutionality of Virginia Code § 18.2-361(A). 2. That Virginia Code § 18.2-361(A) survives an as applied constitutional attack where the conduct alleged involved an adult and a minor who is above the age of consent in Virginia. While assignment of error 2 is worded somewhat differently than the content of McDonald's Question Presented in the Court of Appeals, it nonetheless fairly encompasses his argument to that court. Assignment of error 1 is directed to the judgment of the Court of Appeals. In his brief before this Court, McDonald makes the same arguments he did in the Court of Appeals. He is aided in his arguments by a brief amicus curiae. But the efforts of the amicus are to no avail because the arguments of the parties on appeal and thus the aid of amicus must be limited to issues preserved in the trial court, Rule 5:25, and to issues presented before the appellate courts, Rule 5A:12, Rule 5:17 and Rule 5:30(c). Of course, an appellate court may not reverse a judgment of the trial court based upon an alleged error in a decision that was not made or upon an issue that was not presented. The trial court in this case never had before it a claim of facial invalidity of Code § 18.2-361(A). Consequently, we will not consider McDonald's first assignment of error. We will consider his limited argument concerning the constitutionality of the statute as applied to him.