Leo Lamont Vereen v. Commonwealth ( 1997 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Baker, Bray and Overton
Argued at Norfolk, Virginia
LEO LAMONT VEREEN
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 2809-96-1 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON
OCTOBER 7, 1997
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS
Randolph T. West, Judge
James S. Ellenson for appellant.
Leah A. Darron, Assistant Attorney General
(James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General;
H. Elizabeth Shaffer, Assistant Attorney
General, on brief), for appellee.
Leo Lamont Vereen (defendant) appeals his conviction for
possession of a handgun while being a felon. He contends that
the trial court abused its discretion by continuing his trial,
sua sponte, after the Commonwealth had rested. Because we find
no merit to this argument, we affirm.
The parties are fully conversant with the record in the
cause, and because this memorandum opinion carries no
precedential value, no recitation of the facts is necessary.
"A motion for a continuance . . . is addressed to the sound
discretion of the trial court whose decision will not be reversed
unless the record affirmatively shows an abuse of such
discretion." Smith v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 630, 634, 432
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
S.E.2d 2, 5 (1993) (citing Shifflett v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 25,
30, 235 S.E.2d 316, 319 (1977)). Defendant ascribes error to the
distinction between the trial court granting a motion of the
parties to continue the case and the court continuing the case by
its own motion. This is a distinction without a difference. "A
trial judge has the right, indeed it is his duty, when necessary
for the fair and orderly administration of justice to participate
in the trial and facilitate its progress." Skipper v.
Commonwealth, 195 Va. 870, 879, 80 S.E.2d 401, 406 (1954). A
trial court may even reopen the case after closing arguments have
been made if it deems that justice so requires. See Robinson v.
Commonwealth, 190 Va. 134, 141, 56 S.E.2d 367, 370-71 (1949). It
surely has the power to continue a case to allow further evidence
on a relevant issue even if the Commonwealth has rested.
We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by
continuing the case on its own. Accordingly, we affirm
defendant's conviction.
Affirmed.
2