Stacy Myers v. Commonwealth of Virginia ( 1998 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Baker, Willis and Overton
Argued at Norfolk, Virginia
STACY MYERS
OPINION BY
v. Record No. 1536-97-1 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR.
FEBRUARY 17, 1998
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF HAMPTON
Walter J. Ford, Judge
Charles E. Haden (Timothy G. Clancy; Cumming,
Hatchett & Jordan, on brief), for appellant.
Robert H. Anderson, III, Assistant Attorney
General (Richard Cullen, Attorney General, on
brief), for appellee.
Stacy Myers contends that the evidence fails to support her
conviction of second-degree murder. The Commonwealth has moved
to dismiss this appeal, arguing that it has been heretofore
concluded. We grant the Commonwealth's motion and dismiss this
appeal.
On February 3, 1992, a grand jury indicted Myers for murder,
Code § 18.2-32, and felony child neglect, Code § 18.2-371.1. The
charges stemmed from the death of Myers' newborn infant daughter
on October 25, 1991. The charges were tried at a bench trial on
April 22, 1992. The trial court ruled orally:
I think she's guilty of the charge of
the felony murder. Not -- not first degree.
I don't think there's -- Commonwealth
established first degree murder in the case,
but I do think it's second degree. And I
find her guilty.
The conviction order, entered April 22, 1992, and the sentencing
order, entered August 19, 1992, recited that Myers was convicted
of second-degree murder, in violation of Code § 18.2-32. The
child neglect charge was dismissed.
Myers appealed her 1992 conviction, contending that the
evidence failed to support a conviction for felony murder under
Code § 18.2-33. In an unpublished opinion, a panel of this Court
reversed the conviction, holding that the evidence failed to
support a conviction of second-degree murder. Myers v.
Commonwealth, Record No. 1780-92-1 (Va. Ct. App. July 26, 1994).
Upon rehearing en banc, we affirmed the conviction in an
unpublished opinion. Myers v. Commonwealth, Record No. 1780-92-1
(Va. Ct. App. May 16, 1995) (en banc). We held that Myers was
precluded from appellate relief, because she had failed to
challenge her conviction for second-degree murder under Code
§ 18.2-32, the statute under which she had been charged and
convicted. See Rule 5A:12(c). The Supreme Court denied Myers'
petition for appeal from our decision. Myers v. Commonwealth,
Record No. 951094 (Va. Oct. 25, 1995).
On May 29, 1997, Myers moved the trial court to correct the
conviction and sentencing orders pursuant to Code § 8.01-428(B)
to reflect that she had been convicted under Code § 18.2-33, not
under Code § 18.2-32. On June 13, 1997, the trial court granted
the motion and ordered:
That Defendant's conviction order
entered April 22, 1992 and sentencing order
entered August 22, 1992, be, and hereby are,
corrected pursuant to Va. Code § 8.01-428(B)
to reflect that the Defendant STACY MYERS was
- 2 -
convicted under Va. Code § 18.2-33, not Va.
Code § 18.2-32.
From the June 13, 1997 order, Myers initiated this appeal on
the erroneous assumption that the 1997 order vacated the 1992
orders and created a new final order from which her conviction
could be appealed.
Rule 1:1 provides that:
All final judgments, orders, and
decrees, irrespective of terms of court,
shall remain under the control of the trial
court and subject to be modified, vacated, or
suspended for twenty-one days after the date
of entry, and no longer.
No action was taken to modify, vacate, or suspend the 1992 orders
within the prescribed twenty-one day period following their
entry. Thereafter, those orders became final and the trial court
lost jurisdiction to review the conviction. See Hirschkop v.
Commonwealth, 209 Va. 678, 166 S.E.2d 322 (1969); School Bd. of
Lynchburg v. Caudill Rowlett Scott, Inc., 237 Va. 550, 379 S.E.2d
319 (1989); Davis v. Mullins, 251 Va. 141, 148-49, 466 S.E.2d 90,
94 (1996). Myers' conviction was subsequently affirmed by this
Court, and the Supreme Court refused her petition for appeal.
Her conviction thus became final and unassailable on direct
appeal.
Although divested of jurisdiction, a "trial court has the
inherent power, independent of statutory authority, to correct
errors in the record so as to cause its acts and proceedings to
be set forth correctly." Davis, 251 Va. at 149, 466 S.E.2d at 94
- 3 -
(citing Council v. Commonwealth, 198 Va. 288, 292, 94 S.E.2d 245,
248 (1956)). In addition, Code § 8.01-428(B) provides that:
Clerical mistakes in all judgments or other
parts of the record and errors therein
arising from oversight or from an inadvertent
omission may be corrected by the court at any
time on its own initiative or upon the motion
of any party and after such notice, as the
court may order.
See also Code § 8.01-429 (providing appellate courts
corresponding authority).
Code § 8.01-428(B) did not invest the trial court with
authority, by entry of the June 13, 1997 order, to substitute a
conviction under Code § 18.2-33 for Myers' final conviction under
Code § 18.2-32. The trial court was not authorized to reconsider
the merits of Myers' conviction. It was not authorized to vacate
a judgment that had become final. It was not authorized to enter
a new judgment that was not underlain by an appropriate charge,
process, plea, or authorized manner of disposition.
The trial court purported to exercise the discretionary
power conferred upon it by Code § 8.01-428(B) to correct
"clerical mistakes arising from oversight or from an inadvertent
omission." Thus, the 1997 order could effect only a mere
clerical "correction," amending the record to make it "speak the
truth." See Council, 198 Va. at 292-93, 94 S.E.2d at 248. The
post-appeal "correction" of the 1992 orders could not modify or
vacate the conviction. Modification or vacation would have
required reacquisition by the trial court of jurisdiction over
- 4 -
the underlying subject matter -- an impermissible action barred
by Rule 1:1. See Dixon v. Pugh, 244 Va. 539, 543, 423 S.E.2d
169, 171 (1992); Davis, 251 Va. at 149-50, 466 S.E.2d at 95.
This holding is consonant with the narrow construction and
application afforded a trial court's power to amend and correct a
record. See Council, 198 Va. at 292, 94 S.E.2d at 248; McEwen
Lumber Co. v. Lipscomb Bros. Lumber Co., 234 Va. 243, 247, 360
S.E.2d 845, 848 (1987).
To permit a trial court, either under
the statute or by its inherent power, to
consider at any time what judgment it might
have rendered while it still retained
jurisdiction over a case and then to enter
that judgment nunc pro tunc would render
meaningless the mandate of Rule 1:1 and would
do great harm to the certainty and stability
that the finality of judgments brings.
Davis, 251 Va. at 150, 466 S.E.2d at 94.
Because the 1997 correction order could not change the
specific crime of which Myers was convicted, it was a nullity.
Thus, it was not an order from which an appeal to challenge her
1992 conviction may be sought anew. Consequently, we cannot
1
decide the merits of this appeal. The Commonwealth's motion is
granted, and the appeal is dismissed.
Dismissed.
1
Myers was sentenced to ten years imprisonment. Conviction
of second-degree murder under Code § 18.2-32 carries a sentence
of five to forty years. Conviction of murder under Code
§ 18.2-33 is punishable as a Class 3 felony, carrying a sentence
of five to twenty years. Myers' sentence fell within the
punishment scope of both statutes.
- 5 -