Court Opinion

ID: 9393112
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-09 14:11:03.322075+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:51.026011
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

              Present: Judges Beales, O’Brien and Athey
UNPUBLISHED

              ANTONIO MASON COYNE
                                                                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION*
              v.      Record No. 0628-22-4                                           PER CURIAM
                                                                                     MAY 9, 2023
              COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

                                FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY
                                               Tracy C. Hudson, Judge

                               (Taso R. Saunders, on brief), for appellant.

                               (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General; Collin C. Crookenden,
                               Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

                      Antonio Mason Coyne entered Alford pleas of guilty to possessing a controlled substance

              with intent to distribute, simultaneously possessing a controlled substance and a firearm, and child

              endangerment. See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970). On March 23, 2022, the trial

              court entered a final order which sentenced Coyne to ten years of imprisonment with eight years

              suspended. After examining the briefs and the record in this case, the panel unanimously holds that

              oral argument is unnecessary because “the appeal is wholly without merit” given that Coyne has

              failed to timely file the necessary transcripts required to adequately address his arguments. Code

              § 17.1-403(ii)(a); Rules 5A:8(a), 5A:27(a).

                      Coyne argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to withdraw his Alford

              guilty pleas. Before addressing Coyne’s assignments of error, however, we must address the

              state of the record on appeal. “The transcript of any proceeding is a part of the record when it is

              filed in the office of the clerk of the trial court no later than 60 days after entry of the final

                      *
                          This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413.
judgment.” Rule 5A:8(a). Given that the final order was entered on March 23, 2022, a transcript

must have been filed in the trial court clerk’s office by May 23, 2022,1 in order for the transcript

to be part of the record in this appeal. See Code § 1-210(B).

       The transcript of the hearing involving the plea colloquy and the transcript of the

sentencing hearing were filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Prince William

County on May 25 and May 26, 2022, respectively.2 Accordingly, those transcripts are untimely

and cannot be included in the record before this Court in this appeal. Rule 5A:8(a). In addition,

Coyne did not file a written statement of facts in lieu of a transcript to supplement the record.

See Rule 5A:8(c)(2). “When the appellant fails to ensure that the record contains transcripts or a

written statement of facts necessary to permit resolution of appellate issues, any assignments of

error affected by such omission will not be considered.” Rule 5A:8(b)(4)(ii).

       “If . . . the transcript [or statement of facts] is indispensable to the determination of the case,

then the requirements for making the transcript [or statement of facts] a part of the record on appeal

must be strictly adhered to.” Bay v. Commonwealth, 60 Va. App. 520, 528 (2012) (alterations in

original) (quoting Turner v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 96, 99 (1986)). “This Court has no

authority to make exceptions to the filing requirements set out in the Rules.” Shiembob v.

Shiembob, 55 Va. App. 234, 246 (2009) (quoting Turner, 2 Va. App. at 99); see also Bay, 60

Va. App. at 528-29. “Whether the record is sufficiently complete to permit our review on appeal is

a question of law subject to our de novo review.” Bay, 60 Va. App. at 529.

       1
         May 22, 2022, would have been sixty days from the March 23, 2022 final sentencing
order, but May 22, 2022, was a Sunday, and so the transcripts would have needed to be filed by
Monday, May 23, 2022.
       2
         On January 12, 2023, the trial court entered an order resolving a conflict in the record
regarding the date the transcripts were filed. The trial court’s order confirmed that both of the
transcripts were filed after the May 23, 2022 deadline.
                                                -2-
       We conclude that the missing transcripts are indispensable to resolving Coyne’s

assignments of error challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his Alford

guilty pleas. The sentencing order indicates that Coyne moved to withdraw his Alford guilty

pleas at the sentencing hearing and that the trial court denied the motion “[a]fter hearing

evidence and argument of counsel.” The record does not contain a written motion to withdraw

Coyne’s Alford guilty pleas. Without the transcript of the sentencing hearing, the record before

this Court does not contain any arguments made by Coyne in the trial court in support of his

motion to withdraw his Alford guilty pleas, nor does the record contain any factual findings that

the trial court made related to its ruling. Consequently, this Court cannot determine whether the

trial court erred by denying Coyne’s motion to withdraw his Alford guilty pleas.3 Because we

cannot reach Coyne’s assignments of error, we, therefore, must affirm the trial court’s judgment.

See Rule 5A:8(a), (b)(4).

                                          CONCLUSION

       For the foregoing reasons, we do not disturb the judgment of the trial court.

                                                                                              Affirmed.

       3
         A defendant seeking to withdraw his guilty pleas before sentencing must show that the
motion is made in good faith and that he has a reasonable basis for going to trial. Brown v.
Commonwealth, 297 Va. 295, 299 (2019). The trial court also must consider whether granting the
motion would prejudice the Commonwealth. Small v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 292, 298 (2016).
                                               -3-