 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Walters v. Commonwealth5/16/1989
Hanover County Code § 15-2 which, like Walters' two convictions, occurred after the recodification. The Mitchell panel reversed and dismissed Mitchell's conviction, holding that Code § 15-2 remained invalid after the recodification because the county board failed to approve the amendment in the state code reference by ordinance as required by Code § 15.1-504. Mitchell, 1 Va. App. at 488-89, 340 S.E.2d at 174-75.
However, in the case now before us the Commonwealth makes a point which apparently was never raised or addressed in Mitchell. It argues that Code § 15-2 was valid at the time of Walters' convictions by virtue of Code § 15.1-37.3, which states in pertinent part:
Any county, city or town may codify or recodify any or all of its ordinances.... Such ordinances may be changed, altered or amended by the governing body of the county, city or town and ordinances or portions thereof may be deleted and new material may be added by the governing body. Such changes, alterations, amendments or deletions and such new material shall become effective on the effective date of the codification or recodification.
(1) Despite the existence of this statute, Walters asserts that Mitchell conclusively determined the invalidity of Code § 15-2 and all convictions under it. We disagree. Each panel of the Court of Appeals of Virginia hears and determines, independently of the others, the petitions for appeal and appeals granted in criminal cases and the other cases assigned to that panel. Code § 17-116.02(C). Thus, even if we concluded that the Mitchell case was indistinguishable from this case, the principle of stare decisis does not require that Mitchell control the disposition of this controversy. While we are not bound by the decision of another panel of this court, such decisions are highly persuasive. Cf. Dan River, Inc. v. Adkins, 3 Va. App. 320, 325, 349 S.E.2d 667, 670 (1986). Conflicting panel decisions of this court are resolved through the en banc hearing process. See Code § 17-116.03(D).
Even if we were bound by the Mitchell decision, we would not reach a contrary result in this case. Our Supreme Court made the following observation in dismissing an argument similar to the one Walters now makes:
The claim that the trial court had before it a similar case several years ago and decided that the tax was invalid compels a like decision here, is without merit. The record in the
present case does not contain the complete record in the prior case. There is no record here of what facts or issues were presented and decided by the court in the former case. They may have been different from those appearing here.
Home Brewing Co. v. City of Richmond, 181 Va. 793, 799, 27 S.E.2d 188, 191 (1943).
(2) Similarly, Walters did not make the complete record of Mitchell a part of the record in the trial court. We have only the published Mitchell opinion, from which we must conclude, since there is no mention of Code § 15.1-37.3, that the statute's effect was not considered. Accordingly, based upon the evidence before us in this case, we hold that Walters has not proved that Hanover County Code § 15-2 was void at the time of Walters' two convictions. Because the courts had jurisdiction over the actions and the parties, and the proceedings were regular, their judgments are not subject to collateral attack. See Cottrell v.
Page 1 2 3 Virginia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|