Opinion ID: 1058514
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jay v. Commonwealth

Text: At a bench trial in the Circuit Court for the City of Colonial Heights, Robert Lee Jay was found guilty of breaking and entering a dwelling in the daytime with the intent to commit larceny, in violation of Code § 18.2-91, and grand larceny, in violation of Code § 18.2-95. The trial court sentenced Jay to 20 years of incarceration for the grand larceny conviction. The court suspended that sentence and also suspended imposition of the sentence for the breaking and entering conviction for 20 years on the condition that Jay, among other things, serve 12 months of incarceration in a regional jail. Jay appealed his convictions to the Court of Appeals of Virginia. He presented two questions in his petition for appeal in the Court of Appeals, only one of which is pertinent to the issue before us: Whether the trial court erred in finding sufficient factual evidence that the defendant committed the breaking and entering given that there was a complete lack of direct evidence linking the defendant to the actual breaking and entering. In the Principles of Law and Argument section of his petition for appeal, Jay addressed that specific question presented in two paragraphs. In the first paragraph, Jay quoted from the trial court's holding with regard to the breaking and entering charge and then argued there was no direct evidence linking the defendant to the breaking and entering, i.e., no boot prints associated with Jay, no fingerprints, no DNA evidence, no eyewitnesses, and no confession by Jay to the breaking and entering. In the second paragraph, Jay stated: The Commonwealth is required to exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence. The undersigned presented a reasonable hypothesis at trial. That argument was that there could have easily been a co-conspirator in this case, assuming that the defendant was involved in the first place. That person could have committed the breaking and entering and the defendant could have come into possession of said property after the breaking and entering. Given the complete lack of direct evidence linking the defendant to the breaking and entering, the [trial c]ourt improperly convicted the defendant of breaking and entering. In a per curiam order, the Court of Appeals held that, with regard to Jay's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his breaking and entering conviction, Jay's petition for appeal failed to comply with Rules 5A:12(c) and 5A:20(e). Jay v. Commonwealth, Record No. 3170-06-2 (June 8, 2007). The Court of Appeals explained that Rule 5A:20(e), in conjunction with Rule 5A:12(c), mandates that the petition for appeal include `[t]he principles of law, the argument, and the authorities relating to each question presented. . . .' Id., slip op. at 3. Citing its decisions in Buchanan v. Buchanan, 14 Va.App. 53, 415 S.E.2d 237 (1992), and Theismann v. Theismann, 22 Va.App. 557, 572, 471 S.E.2d 809, 816, aff'd on reh'g en banc, 23 Va.App. 697, 479 S.E.2d 534 (1996), the Court of Appeals concluded that Jay did not comply with Rule 5A:20(e); the petition for appeal does not contain sufficient principles of law, argument, or citation to legal authorities or the record to fully develop the argument regarding the breaking and entering conviction. Jay, slip op. at 3. Consequently, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal with regard to that one question presented. [1] Id.