Gregory Eugene Coleman v. Commonwealth ( 1995 )


Menu:
  •                       COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
    Present:  Chief Judge Moon, Judge Annunziata and
    Senior Judge Hodges
    Argued at Richmond, Virginia
    GREGORY EUGENE COLEMAN
    v.        Record No. 1331-94-2          MEMORANDUM OPINION *
    BY JUDGE ROSEMARIE P. ANNUNZIATA
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA                   AUGUST 1, 1995
    FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
    Herbert C. Gill, Jr., Judge
    Robert J. Wagner (Wagner & Wagner, on brief), for appellant.
    Margaret Ann B. Walker, Assistant Attorney General (James S.
    Gilmore, III, on brief), for appellee.
    Gregory Eugene Coleman (appellant) was convicted by a jury
    of felony petit larceny in violation of Code §§ 18.2-96 and
    19.2-297. 1    On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court
    erred by (1) refusing to bifurcate his trial pursuant to Code
    § 19.2-295.1, and (2) allowing the Commonwealth to present
    * Pursuant of Code § 17.116.010 this opinion is not
    designated for publication.
    1
    Former Code § 19.2-297 provided:
    When a person is convicted of petit larceny,
    and it is alleged in the indictment on which
    he is convicted, and admitted, or found by
    the jury or judge before whom he is tried,
    that he has been before sentenced in the
    United States for any larceny or any offense
    deemed to be larceny by the law of the
    sentencing jurisdiction, he shall be confined
    in jail not less than thirty days nor more
    than twelve months; and for a third, or any
    subsequent offense, he shall be guilty of a
    Class 6 Felony.
    Code § 19.2-297 was repealed in 1994.       Felony petit larceny now
    is included in Code § 18.2-104.
    evidence of his prior larceny convictions.    We disagree and
    affirm the conviction.
    I.
    Appellant was arrested on March 16, 1994 and charged with
    felony petit larceny for stealing two leather wallets from the
    J.C. Penney department store, having been at least twice before
    sentenced for larceny offenses.
    The day of trial, July 7, 1994, the court asked the
    prosecutor if he intended to proceed with a bifurcated trial. 2
    The prosecutor stated that he did not.    Both the trial court and
    appellant's counsel believed that bifurcation was required in
    felony cases.    Appellant's counsel added, however, that he
    "wouldn't have any objection" to a unitary trial.    Counsel for
    the Commonwealth and appellant advised the court that neither
    would have evidence to present at a sentencing phase, beyond that
    which would be presented during the guilt phase of the trial.
    The court ruled that the guilt and sentencing phases of the trial
    would be heard "at the same time," to which appellant's counsel
    responded, "[f]air enough."
    Appellant's counsel also argued pretrial that because he had
    not received certified copies of appellant's prior larceny
    conviction orders from the Commonwealth fourteen days before
    2
    Code § 19.2-295.1, effective July 1, 1994, provides in
    pertinent part that, "[i]n cases of trial by jury, upon a finding
    that the defendant is guilty of a felony, a separate proceeding
    limited to the ascertainment of punishment shall be held as soon
    as practicable before the same jury."
    2
    trial, the Commonwealth was barred by Code § 19.2-295.1 from
    introducing the orders.   The court ruled that proof of prior
    larceny convictions was an element of the offense and the
    Commonwealth was not barred from introducing orders in its case
    to establish that element.    At trial, the Commonwealth introduced
    certified copies of conviction orders for two petit larcenies and
    one grand larceny.
    II.
    The provision in Code § 19.2-295.1 that a "separate
    proceeding limited to the ascertainment of punishment shall be
    heard as soon as practicable before the same jury" is not a
    jurisdictional requirement.   "[T]he use of 'shall' in a statute
    requiring action by a public official, is directory and not
    mandatory unless the statute manifests a contrary intent."
    Jamborsky v. Baskins, 
    247 Va. 506
    , 511, 
    442 S.E.2d 636
    , 638
    (1994).   See Commonwealth v. Rafferty, 
    241 Va. 319
    , 324, 
    402 S.E.2d 17
    , 20 (1991).
    Code § 19.2-295.1 contains no limiting or prohibitory
    language that prevents the circuit court from allowing a unitary
    3
    trial under the circumstances of this case.       "Absent such
    limiting language, the provision at issue is directory and
    procedural, rather than mandatory and jurisdictional."
    
    Jamborsky, 247 Va. at 511
    , 442 S.E.2d at 639.
    3
    Cf. Rule 1:1 which provides that "[a]ll 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." (Emphasis added.)
    3
    At trial, appellant voiced no objection to a unitary
    trial, and in fact acquiesced in the court's proposal to hold the
    two stages of the trial "at the same time."     Thus, appellant is
    barred on appeal from challenging the court's failure to hold a
    bifurcated trial.    Rule 5A:18.    See Boblett v. Commonwealth, 
    10 Va. App. 640
    , 650-51, 
    396 S.E.2d 131
    , 136 (1990).     Moreover, the
    record does not reflect any reason to invoke the good cause or
    ends of justice exceptions to Rule 5A:18.
    III.
    The requirement in Code § 19.2-295.1 that the Commonwealth
    provide copies of conviction orders fourteen days before trial is
    inapplicable in this case.    Appellant was indicted for felony
    petit larceny under Code § 19.2-297 and it is this Code section
    which governs.    That section requires the Commonwealth to allege
    and prove at least two prior larcenies or like offenses in order
    to elevate the charged larceny from a misdemeanor to a felony.
    See Brown v. Commonwealth, 
    226 Va. 56
    , 59, 
    307 S.E.2d 239
    , 242
    (1983).    Proof of prior convictions thus constitutes an element
    of the offense.
    As Code § 19.2-295.1 did not govern the introduction of
    4
    conviction orders in this case, the trial court properly
    admitted the orders into evidence.
    The decision of the trial court is affirmed.
    4
    Code § 19.2-295.1 provides that "[t]he Commonwealth shall
    provide to the defendant fourteen days prior to trial photocopies
    of certified copies of the defendant's prior criminal convictions
    which it intends to introduce at sentencing." (Emphasis added.)
    4
    Affirmed.
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1331942

Filed Date: 8/1/1995

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021