Court Opinion

ID: 9372387
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-21 14:11:16.711693+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:34.720058
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

              Present: Judges Malveaux, Athey and Callins
UNPUBLISHED

              MICHAEL SHANE WILSON
                                                                             MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
              v.     Record No. 0435-22-3                                   JUDGE CLIFFORD L. ATHEY, JR.
                                                                                FEBRUARY 21, 2023
              COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

                                FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY
                                              Stacey W. Moreau, Judge

                               (Joseph A. Sanzone; Sanzone & Baker, L.L.P., on brief), for
                               appellant.

                               (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General; John Beamer, Assistant
                               Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

                     Michael Shane Wilson (“Wilson”) was convicted in the Circuit Court of Pittsylvania County

              (“trial court”) on one count of eluding police, a felony in violation of Code § 46.2-817(B).1

              Because Wilson pled guilty to felony eluding in Henry County involving the same incident, he

              asserts that the subsequent prosecution for felony eluding in Pittsylvania County violated his double

              jeopardy rights under the Fifth Amendment. 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). For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court.

                     *
                         Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
                     1
                      Wilson was also convicted of felony hit and run, assault and battery on a law
              enforcement officer, and felony property damage. Those convictions are not before the Court.
                                           I. BACKGROUND2

        On January 24, 2021, Pittsylvania County Sheriff’s Deputy C.A. Hammock (“Deputy

Hammock”) received a call concerning a gray, four-door, Nissan sedan (“Nissan”) that was

involved in a police chase in Henry County. At trial, Deputy Hammock testified that he was

advised that the Henry County police pursuit had been terminated, but the vehicle was believed to

be heading into Pittsylvania County. Thereafter, Deputy Hammock observed a moving vehicle,

matching the Nissan’s description, in Pittsylvania County. Deputy Hammock further testified that

he ran the tag on the vehicle to confirm that it was the same car. He also observed the driver of the

vehicle, later identified as Wilson, running a stop sign. Next, Deputy Hammock testified that he

activated his lights and siren on his marked police vehicle and attempted to initiate a traffic stop.

Pittsylvania County Sheriff’s Deputy Harmon (“Deputy Harmon”), who was driving behind Deputy

Hammock in a separate police vehicle, also testified that she activated her lights and siren to assist

in the attempted traffic stop.

        Wilson failed to pull the Nissan over and, instead, kept driving in an attempt to elude the

deputies. Deputy Hammock and Deputy Harmon testified that the Nissan was “all over the road, in

and out of traffic,” and moved around other cars at speeds exceeding 100 miles per hour during the

subsequent police pursuit. Additional police officers joined the Pittsylvania County pursuit five to

ten miles from where it began. Wilson eventually “bounced off” a vehicle driven by Virginia State

Trooper J.W. Gregory (“Trooper Gregory”) and struck Deputy Hammock’s police cruiser. Deputy

Hammock then lost control of his police cruiser and went over an embankment adjacent to the right

side of the road. Deputy Hammock then rejoined the chase, reaching speeds in excess of 100 miles

        2
          “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.” Gerald v.
Commonwealth, 295 Va. 469, 472 (2018) (quoting Scott v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 380, 381
(2016)).
                                                -2-
per hour before finally pulling in front of the Nissan. Wilson reacted by attempting to drive around

Deputy Hammock, but hit his police unit in the rear, causing Deputy Hammock to lose control of

his police unit and hit a guardrail, thereby disabling him from further participation in the pursuit.

        Trooper Gregory and the other deputies continued to chase Wilson at excessive speeds

through Pittsylvania County all the way into Campbell County, at which time the Nissan was

“spiked” by a spike strip at an intersection, disabling the Nissan and ending the pursuit.

        At the conclusion of all the evidence at trial, Wilson moved to strike, arguing that this

prosecution violated his constitutional right against double jeopardy because he could not be

convicted of felony eluding in Pittsylvania County because he had already pled guilty to that offense

in Henry County. The trial court denied Wilson’s motion to strike and convicted him of the offense.

This appeal followed.

                                             II. ANALYSIS

                                        A. Standard of Review

        We review questions pertaining to double jeopardy or statutory interpretation de novo.

Davis v. Commonwealth, 57 Va. App. 446, 455 (2011).

        B. The trial court did not err in convicting Wilson of eluding in violation of Code
           § 46.2-817(B) when he had previously been convicted of eluding in Henry County for
           violating Code § 46.2-817(B).

        Wilson’s sole contention on appeal is that his prosecution in Pittsylvania County violated his

double jeopardy rights under the Fifth Amendment because he had already pled guilty to the offense

in Henry County.3 We disagree.

        The Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution provides that no person shall

“be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” U.S. Const. amend. V.

“This constitutional provision guarantees protection against (1) a second prosecution for the same

        3
            Wilson does not contest the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the conviction.
                                                  -3-
offense after acquittal; (2) a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and

(3) multiple punishments for the same offense.” Johnson v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 738, 741

(2016) (quoting Payne v. Commonwealth, 257 Va. 216, 227 (1999)). However, “[a] defendant may

be convicted of multiple counts if he commits separate and distinct acts.” Hodnett v.

Commonwealth, 56 Va. App. 234, 237 (2010). In other words, “where a completed offense has

occurred, a separate charge may be brought for a repetition of the same conduct.” Stephens v.

Commonwealth, 35 Va. App. 141, 146 (2001), aff’d, 263 Va. 58 (2002). “In determining whether

the conduct underlying the convictions is based upon the ‘same act,’ the particular criminal

transaction must be examined to determine whether the acts are the same in terms of time, situs,

victim, and the nature of the act itself.” Sheng Jie Jin v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 294, 303-04

(2017) (quoting Hall v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 892, 898 (1992)).

       Code § 46.2-817(B) provides:

               Any person who, having received a visible or audible signal from
               any law-enforcement officer to bring his motor vehicle to a stop,
               drives such motor vehicle in a willful and wanton disregard of such
               signal so as to interfere with or endanger the operation of the
               law-enforcement vehicle or endanger a person is guilty of a Class 6
               felony.

The plain language of the statute requires the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt

that

               (1) the accused received a visible or audible signal from a law
               enforcement officer to bring the motor vehicle to a stop, (2) the
               accused drove the motor vehicle in a willful and wanton disregard
               of the visible or audible signal from a law enforcement officer to
               bring the motor vehicle to a stop, and (3) the accused drove the
               motor vehicle in a way that interfered with or endangered the
               operation of the law enforcement vehicle or in a way that
               endangered a person.

Jones v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 361, 367-68 (2015). The only relevant inquiry in this case is

whether Wilson committed a separate offense of eluding in Pittsylvania County.

                                                 -4-
        Without question, Wilson eluded police in Henry County. Officers in Henry County alerted

officers in Pittsylvania County of that fact and gave them a detailed description of the car.

However, by the time Deputy Hammock located Wilson’s car in Pittsylvania County, the Henry

County pursuit had already been terminated and no other police units were in pursuit. Indeed,

Deputy Hammock first noticed Wilson ten to fifteen miles away from the Henry County line, and

there were no police vehicles in pursuit. Deputy Hammock then observed Wilson run a stop sign.

When Deputy Hammock attempted a traffic stop, Wilson sped up and led Deputy Hammock and

other officers on a lengthy police chase. Wilson weaved in and out of traffic at speeds exceeding

100 miles per hour and eventually hit Trooper Gregory’s vehicle and collided with Deputy

Hammock’s vehicle, causing Deputy Hammock to go over the embankment on the right-hand side

of the road. Both police vehicles sustained extensive damage. Wilson then continued to drive at

high rates of speed all the way to Campbell County.

        On these facts, it is clear that the act of eluding police in Pittsylvania County, though in

temporal proximity, was not a continuation of his eluding in Henry County. Wilson’s actions in

Pittsylvania County involved a new formation and implementation of purpose after he ran a stop

sign, failed to submit to a traffic stop, and then involved a number of different police victims in a

new chase through Pittsylvania County. Thus, the evidence supports the trial court’s finding that

Wilson committed two separate and distinct acts of felony eluding; one in Henry County and one in

Pittsylvania County. As the trial court correctly found, this was not one continuous act.

                                           III. CONCLUSION

        Because Wilson committed separate and distinct acts of evading and eluding police in

Henry and Pittsylvania Counties, his double jeopardy rights under the Fifth Amendment were not

violated. The ruling of the trial court is affirmed.

                                                                                                Affirmed.

                                                  -5-