Opinion ID: 1058263
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Demetrious Brown v. Commonwealth

Text: Demetrious contends that under Rule 5A:18 the Commonwealth did not preserve the sentencing issue for appeal because the Commonwealth did not object to the court's imposition of a juvenile disposition upon Demetrious. The Commonwealth responds that it satisfied Rule 5A:18 by making the circuit court aware of its position on mandatory sentencing. The Commonwealth contends that it argued consistently that Code § 18.2-53.1 and Bullock required the circuit court to impose the mandatory minimum sentences specified in Code § 18.2-53.1 and limited the circuit court's ability to sentence Demetrious as a juvenile. We agree with the Commonwealth. As a question of law, the interpretation of Rule 5A:18 requires de novo review. Jay v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 510, 517, 659 S.E.2d 311, 315 (2008) (applying de novo review to an interpretation of Rule 5A:20). Rule 5A:18 requires a litigant to make timely and specific objections, so that the trial court has an opportunity to rule intelligently on the issues presented, thus avoiding unnecessary appeals and reversals. West v. Commonwealth, 43 Va.App. 327, 337, 597 S.E.2d 274, 278 (2004). The Court of Appeals has held that a litigant may satisfy Rule 5A:18 in multiple ways. Lee v. Lee, 12 Va.App. 512, 515, 404 S.E.2d 736, 738 (1991). Moreover, in reference to Rule 5A:18's Supreme Court Rule counterpart, Rule 5:25, this Court recently stated that Code § 8.01-384 controls our interpretation of the rule. Helms v. Manspile, 277 Va. 1, 7, 671 S.E.2d 127, 130 (2009). Code § 8.01-384(A) should likewise inform an interpretation of Rule 5A:18. Code § 8.01-384(A) provides as follows: Formal exceptions to rulings or orders of the court shall be unnecessary; ... it shall be sufficient that a party, at the time the ruling or order of the court is made or sought, makes known to the court the action which he desires the court to take or his objections to the action of the court and his grounds therefor;.... Arguments made at trial via written pleading, memorandum, recital of objections in a final order, oral argument reduced to transcript, or agreed written statements of facts shall, unless expressly withdrawn or waived, be deemed preserved therein for assertion on appeal. Under Code § 8.01-384(A) and our analysis in Helms, if a trial court is aware of a litigant's legal position and the litigant did not expressly waive such arguments, the arguments remain preserved for appeal. Helms, 277 Va. at 7, 671 S.E.2d at 129-30. The Commonwealth preserved for appeal its arguments concerning the issue of Demetrious' sentences because the Commonwealth made the circuit court aware of its position. At Demetrious' sentencing hearing, the Commonwealth argued that the mandatory minimum sentence applied to Demetrious' five convictions for use of a firearm in the commission of a felony because Bullock controlled the circuit court's sentencing determination. The Commonwealth argued, expressly relying upon the Bullock decision, that the circuit court lacked discretion to impose a juvenile disposition under Code § 16.1-272 where a juvenile tried as an adult was found guilty of violating Code § 18.2-53.1. Even after the circuit court took a recess to review Bullock, the Commonwealth reiterated that its argument relied on Bullock. The record indicates that the circuit court understood the Commonwealth's position; the circuit court attempted to harmonize Bullock, Code § 18.2-53.1's mandatory language and Code § 16.1-272's juvenile provisions. Because the circuit court was aware of and had acknowledged the Commonwealth's position, which the Commonwealth never expressly waived, and the circuit court had an opportunity to rule intelligently on the issues presented, West, 43 Va.App. at 337, 597 S.E.2d at 278, the Commonwealth preserved for appeal its argument that the circuit court was required to impose the statutorily mandated sentences upon Demetrious. Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals in holding that the Commonwealth complied with Rule 5A:18 in Demetrious' case.