Court Opinion

ID: 9579204
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:52:28.319104+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:34:34.111820
License: Public Domain

Buchanan, J.,
concurring:
I agree with the conclusion of the foregoing opinion that § 53-296 is constitutional and that it is not administered in such a manner as to deprive the appellant of equal protection of the laws. I think this is so because of the following additional reason:
The practice complained of by the appellant does not discriminate against him. He is treated exactly like all other prisoners in the penitentiary who have been previously convicted of a felony in Virginia. The fact that the statute has not also been enforced against those who have been previously convicted in other States does not deny to him the equal protection of the law, any more than one who is convicted of murder is denied equal protection because others also guilty have not been punished.
The principle stated in Grosso v. Commonwealth, 177 Va. 830, 839, 13 S. E. 2d 285, 288, with respect to a statute applies as well to the application of the statute:
“It is well settled that one challenging the constitutionality of a provision in a statute has the burden of showing that he himself has been injured thereby. It avails him nothing to point out that some other person might conceivably be discriminated against.”
A statute which, “ ‘in carrying out a public purpose,, is limited in its application, if within the sphere of its operation it affects alike all persons similarly situated’ ” does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment by denying equal protection of the laws. C. I. T. Corp. v. Commonwealth, 153 Va. 57, 66, 149 S. E. 523, 526. Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27, 5 S. Ct. 357, 28 L. ed. 923; Via v. State Commission on Conservation, Etc., 9 F. Supp. 556, 563, affirmed in 296 U. S. 549, 56 S. Ct. 245, 80 L. ed. 388, on the ground that appellant had adequate remedy at law.
If § 53-296 provided that a person sentenced to the penitentiary in *356Virginia who had previously been sentenced to like punishment in Virginia should receive additional punishment, its constitutionality would be unassailable. For the same reason a practice which results only in limiting the sphere of the operation of the statute, but which is applied alike to all persons similarly situated, does not’ deny equal protection, whatever else may be said of the delinquencies with respect to its enforcement.
“Where the class which includes the party complaining is in no manner prejudiced, the general rule is that it is immaterial whether a law discriminates against other classes or denies to other persons equal protection of the laws.” 11 Am. Jur., Constitutional Law, § 113, p. 757, and cases cited in Note 19.
One not affected by a discrimination made by a statute has no standing to question its validity as discriminatory. Schlitz Brewing Co. v. Milwaukee, 232 Wis. 118, 286 N. W. 602, 122 A.L.R. 1431.
Equally one not affected by a discrimination in the enforcement of a statute has no cause to complain.
It does appellant no harm if there are those in the penitentiary who have previously been convicted in a State other than Virginia and have not been proceeded against under § 53-296. It would help him not at all if they were given additional punishment, and it takes nothing from him if they are not. The appellant has not been treated differently from any other inmate of the penitentiary. If there are others who might be,, but have not been, given additional punishment because they have been previously convicted in other States, that fact in no way prejudices the appellant. The statute is applied equally to him and all others in his situation, and there is no discrimination against him if there be others in a different situation who are allowed to escape the provisions of the statute.
Chief Justice Eggleston joins in this concurring opinion.