Court Opinion

ID: 9586333
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:09:34.865197+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:14.953300
License: Public Domain

POFF, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
The majority reverses the judgment entered below on the ground the circuit court did not abuse its discretion. I concur in the result, but I would vacate the judgment as void for want of jurisdiction.
One of the questions expressly raised in this Court was whether an individual judge of the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to review a circuit court’s denial of post-conviction bail. The majority *364decides not to consider that question because it was not raised below. I dissent from that decision. In my view, the issue is properly before this Court and should be adjudicated.
As the majority observes, “a question of jurisdiction over the subject matter . . . may be noted for the first time on appeal.” A circuit court has jurisdiction over an application for post-conviction bail. This is jurisdiction over the subject matter. The Court of Appeals has collective jurisdiction to review a circuit court’s denial of post-conviction bail. Code § 19.2-319. This is jurisdiction over the subject matter. Obviously, the question whether an individual judge of the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to review a circuit court’s denial of post-conviction bail is a question of subject-matter jurisdiction.
“A judgment rendered by a court which had no jurisdiction of the subject matter is a nullity, and may be so treated by all persons, anywhere, at any time and in any manner.” Shelton v. Sydnor, 126 Va. 625, 630, 102 S.E. 83, 85 (1920). Indeed, “the want of such jurisdiction of the trial court will be noticed by this court ex mero motu.” Id.
The Court of Appeals cannot bestow upon one of its members the jurisdiction conferred upon it by Code § 19.2-319. “Jurisdiction of the subject matter can only be acquired by virtue of the Constitution or of some statute.” Id. at 629, 102 S.E. at 85. Nothing in the Constitution or statutory law of this Commonwealth vests a single judge of any appellate court with jurisdiction to review denial of post-conviction bail.
It is true that the General Assembly has granted single judges and justices of the appellate courts jurisdiction to review a decision of a lower court denying pre-trial bail to an accused. Code § 19.2-124 provides that “[i]f a . . . judicial officer denies bail to an accused . . . the accused . . . may appeal therefrom successively to the next higher court or judge”. Significantly, that statute makes no mention of denial of bail to an accused whose presumption of innocence has been rebutted by conviction.
Apparently, the majority feels, as I do, that the law should be otherwise. But the General Assembly writes the law, and whenever, as here, the law is properly called into question in this Court, we should interpret and apply it as it was written, not as we think it should have been written.