Noel Austin Cherry v. Commonwealth ( 1997 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Baker, Annunziata and Overton
Argued at Norfolk, Virginia
NOEL AUSTIN CHERRY
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 1478-96-1 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON
MAY 6, 1997
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK
Thomas R. McNamara, Judge
J. Brian Sheridan (White & Sheridan, P.C., on
brief), for appellant.
H. Elizabeth Shaffer, Assistant Attorney
General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney
General, on brief), for appellee.
Noel Austin Cherry was convicted of distribution of cocaine.
On appeal, Cherry claims that because the certificate of
analysis did not contain his name, it should not have been
admitted. Cherry also wishes to raise issues pro se that his
counsel did not raise in the petition for appeal. For the
reasons that follow, 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.
Code § 19.2-187 governs the admissibility of certificates of
analysis. "The first paragraph of Code § 19.2-187 sets forth a
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
specific statement of admissibility of certificates of laboratory
analysis subject to provisos expressly stated and numbered (i)
and (ii). When those provisos are satisfied, the statement of
admissibility is complete, and a certificate thus qualified is
properly received into evidence." Stokes v. Commonwealth, 11 Va.
App. 550, 552, 399 S.E.2d 453, 454 (1991). The statute contains
no requirement that the defendant’s name be on the certificate.
At trial, testimony was given that the substance whose test
results appear on the certificate was taken from the defendant.
No error was committed in admitting this certificate.
Cherry also raises several issues on appeal pro se. We need
not decide whether an appellant with appointed counsel may file
additional pro se assignments of error, because Cherry's pro se
petition was untimely filed, as was his motion for an extension
of time.
Affirmed.
- 2 -