Court Opinion

ID: 9408021
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-11 14:10:54.462301+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:41.207607
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

              Present: Judges Humphreys, White and Retired Judge Frank
UNPUBLISHED

              THIGHE KAVANAUGH, SOMETIMES KNOWN AS
               THIGHE KAVANAGH
                                                                              MEMORANDUM OPINION**
              v.     Record No. 1410-22-4                                         PER CURIAM
                                                                                  JULY 11, 2023
              COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

                                   FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAUQUIER COUNTY
                                            Dennis L. Hupp, Judge Designate

                               (Paul D. Fore, Senior Trial Attorney; Office of the Public Defender,
                               on briefs), for appellant.

                               (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General; Jonathan M. Larcomb,
                               Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

                     Upon his guilty pleas, the circuit court convicted Thighe Kavanagh of two counts of child

              abuse, discharging a firearm in an occupied dwelling, reckless handling of a firearm, use of a

              firearm in the commission of a felony, and malicious wounding. The circuit court sentenced

              Kavanagh to 48 years of incarceration with 34 years suspended. On appeal, he argues that the

              circuit court erred by finding that his “motion to reconsider was presentation of a defense, and not

              mitigation of the offense,” that it was “not compatible with the public interest,” and by not granting

              a hearing on the motion. After examining the briefs and record in this case, the panel unanimously

              holds that oral argument is unnecessary because “the appeal is wholly without merit.” Code

              § 17.1-403(ii)(a); Rule 5A:27(a). Because Kavanagh did not comply with Rule 5A:8 and a

                     Retired Judge Frank took part in the consideration of this case by designation pursuant
              to Code § 17.1-400(D).
                     **
                          This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A).
transcript or a written statement of facts is indispensable to resolving his appeal, we affirm the

circuit court’s decision.

                                           BACKGROUND

        “In accordance with familiar principles of appellate review, the facts will be stated in the

light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party at trial.” Poole v. Commonwealth,

73 Va. App. 357, 360 (2021) (quoting Gerald v. Commonwealth, 295 Va. 469, 472 (2018)). In

doing so, we discard any of Kavanagh’s conflicting evidence, and regard as true all credible

evidence favorable to the Commonwealth and all inferences that may reasonably be drawn from

that evidence. Gerald, 295 Va. at 473.

        In January 2022, after his jury trial began, Kavanagh agreed to plead guilty and the

Commonwealth agreed to dismiss two charges and reduce the aggravated malicious wounding

charge to simple malicious wounding. He entered into a written plea agreement whereby he

admitted he was guilty of the charged offenses and acknowledged that there was no agreement as to

his sentence. He further acknowledged that he had been advised of the potential sentences he faced

and that the circuit court “may impose any sentence permitted under the laws of Virginia for the

offense.” He also understood that the calculation of the sentencing guidelines “may not be the same

calculation that [he] expect[ed] based on consultation with [his] attorney.” Finally, Kavanagh

understood that the sentencing guidelines “are not binding upon the [c]ourt which may sentence

[him] above or below the recommended range.”

        At the April 2022 sentencing hearing, Rappahannock County Sheriff’s Captain Jones

testified that in July 2019, he responded to Kavanagh’s residence. There, he found six bullet holes

in four different rooms. He also found a gun on top of a dresser in a bedroom, along with items

associated with Kavanagh. He found another gun with red paint on it concealed beneath the

bathroom vanity.

                                                  -2-
        One of the bullets had struck a child in the leg. At the hospital, Captain Jones spoke with

Kavanagh’s father, whom he knew, and noted that he was “extremely upset.” Captain Jones

encountered Kavanagh at the magistrate’s office and noted red stains on his hands, which Kavanagh

insisted was red paint.

        At the sentencing hearing, the circuit court reviewed the sentencing guidelines, which

calculated a range of 6 years and 6 months to 14 years and 6 months. The presentence report

included information about Kavanagh’s background and mitigating circumstances. Kavanagh

testified at the hearing that his father suffered from dementia and that the shooting resulted from the

two struggling over the gun while his father was in a confused state. The circuit court noted

Kavanagh’s “exemplary” behavior while incarcerated but, weighing that against the seriousness of

the crimes and Kavanagh’s extensive criminal history, found that “a sentence at the high end of the

guidelines is appropriate.” The court sentenced Kavanagh to an active sentence of 14 years.

        Kavanagh filed a motion to reconsider, arguing that the circuit court should modify his

sentence based on “circumstances in mitigation of the offense.” The circuit court denied the

motion. Kavanagh appeals from that order.

                                              ANALYSIS

        Kavanagh argues that the circuit court erred by denying his motion to reconsider based on

his mitigation evidence and incorrectly interpreting the evidence as a defense to his crimes of

conviction.

        Rule 5A:8 requires an appellant to file a timely transcript or a written statement of facts in

lieu of a transcript. See Rule 5A:8(a) and (c) (stating that a transcript or a written statement of facts

is only part of the record when it is timely filed). “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).

                                                  -3-
“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.

        Kavanagh only filed the transcript from the sentencing hearing. He did not file the transcript

from the plea hearing, which included the Commonwealth’s full proffer of the facts. The record on

appeal does not demonstrate whether Kavanagh objected to the proffer. At sentencing, Kavanagh

claimed he struggled with his father and that the shooting was accidental, seemingly contradicting

the Commonwealth’s proffer and his admission that he was guilty of the offenses.

        “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. Here, without a transcript or a written

statement of facts, we cannot determine that Kavanagh properly preserved the issues for appeal, nor

can we assess the merit of his contention that the court improperly denied his motion to reconsider

his sentence. Thus, we conclude that a transcript or a written statement of facts in lieu of a

transcript is indispensable to permit this Court to resolve the issues raised. See Smith v.

Commonwealth, 32 Va. App. 766, 772 (2000). As Kavanagh failed to provide a timely filed

transcript or a written statement of facts in lieu of a transcript necessary to resolve his assignments

of error, we will not consider them. Rule 5A:8(b)(4)(ii).

                                             CONCLUSION

        For these reasons, the circuit court’s decision is affirmed.

                                                                                                 Affirmed.

                                                   -4-