Court Opinion

ID: 9849862
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:47:54.414152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:27.413756
License: Public Domain

Benton, X,
dissenting.
*597For the reasons stated in Hall v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 892, 903-05, 421 S.E.2d 455, 462-64 (1992) (en banc) (Koontz, C.J., and Benton, J., dissenting), I would hold that Code § 19.2-294, “by its express terms, does not exclude its application to multiple convictions obtained in a single trial.” Id. at 904, 421 S.E.2d at 463.
I would also hold that in Padgett v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 758, 263 S.E.2d 388 (1980), the Supreme Court of Virginia implicitly overruled the elements of the offense analysis found in Estes v. Commonwealth, 212 Va. 23, 181 S.E.2d 622 (1971). Code § 19.2-294 requires that this Court use an analysis of the act or conduct of the accused. See Padgett, Lash v. County of Henrico, 14 Va. App. 926, 931, 421 S.E.2d 851, 854 (1992) (en banc) (Koontz, C.J., and Benton, J., dissenting). Accordingly, I dissent.