Opinion ID: 1058263
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dwayne Brown v. Commonwealth

Text: Dwayne likewise contends that the Commonwealth failed to preserve for appeal, in the manner required by Rule 5A:18, its argument that the circuit court lacked the discretion to sentence him as a juvenile pursuant to Code § 16.1-272, rather than in accordance with the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of Code § 18.2-53.1. Dwayne argues not only that the Commonwealth failed to object when the circuit court imposed a juvenile disposition, but also that the Commonwealth conceded that the circuit court had the authority to sentence Dwayne as a juvenile. Moreover, Dwayne contends that the Commonwealth did not prove good cause or a miscarriage of justice necessary to allow the Court of Appeals to review the unpreserved issue concerning his sentencing. The Commonwealth responds by asserting that the circuit court was aware of the mandatory sentencing issue, in part because Dwayne's sentencing shared common facts with Demetrious' sentencing and took place only ten days later before the same judge. The Commonwealth argues that its attorney, the same attorney that prosecuted Demetrious' case, did not concede the court's authority to impose a juvenile disposition, but rather asked that the mandatory minimum sentences be imposed. At Dwayne's sentencing hearing, the Commonwealth requested that the circuit court apply the mandatory minimum sentence, but it failed to argue that the circuit court did not have the discretion to sentence Dwayne as a juvenile. The Commonwealth neither referenced Bullock nor Code § 18.2-53.1 to argue that the circuit court was required to impose the mandatory minimum sentences. In fact, the Commonwealth acknowledged the circuit court's discretion by stating: Obviously the Court has discretion to treat [Dwayne] as a juvenile, treat him as an adult or to come up with a split disposition in the case, sentence him to a juvenile facility until he's eighteen and then transfer him to an adult facility. The Commonwealth cannot rely on the arguments it made during Demetrious' sentencing hearing to demonstrate it satisfied Rule 5A:18 at Dwayne's hearing. Though the same Commonwealth's attorney prosecuted both Demetrious and Dwayne, Dwayne's hearing was a separate proceeding in which he was represented by a different defense attorney. The Commonwealth, at Dwayne's hearing, did not put the circuit court on notice of the Commonwealth's argument that the circuit court did not have the discretion to impose a juvenile sentence upon Dwayne. Because the Commonwealth did not, during Dwayne's proceedings before the circuit court, articulate an argument that the circuit court did not have the authority to impose a juvenile sentence upon Dwayne, the issue was not preserved for appeal. On appeal, a litigant may raise an unpreserved issue based on the ends of justice if the error was `clear, substantial and material.' West, 43 Va.App. at 338, 597 S.E.2d at 279 (quoting Brown v. Commonwealth, 8 Va.App. 126, 132, 380 S.E.2d 8, 11 (1989)); see Rule 5A:18. This Court has stated that Rule 5A:18, like our Rule 5:25, allows an appellate court to consider a matter not preserved by objection in the trial court to attain the ends of justice. Application of the ends of justice exception is appropriate when the judgment of the trial court was error and application of the exception is necessary to avoid a grave injustice or the denial of essential rights. Charles v. Commonwealth, 270 Va. 14, 17, 613 S.E.2d 432, 433 (2005). The Commonwealth has not demonstrated that Rule 5A:18's ends of justice provision is applicable in this case. Because the Commonwealth stated to the circuit court that it [o]bviously ... has discretion to treat [Dwayne] as a juvenile, we conclude that the Commonwealth has not shown that the circuit court committed a clear, substantial and material error, or that the ends of justice exception is necessary to avoid a grave injustice or the denial of essential rights. We hold that with respect to the appeal in the matter of Dwayne Brown v. Commonwealth, the Commonwealth did not comply with Rule 5A:18, and thus failed to preserve for appeal its argument that the circuit court did not have the discretion to sentence Dwayne as a juvenile on the use of a firearm charges. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals vacating Dwayne's juvenile disposition for the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony convictions, and reinstate the sentence imposed by the circuit court.