Starrs v. Commonwealth

PRESENT: All the Justices
WILLIAM GABRIEL STARRS
OPINION BY
v. Record No. 122028 CHIEF JUSTICE CYNTHIA D. KINSER
January 10, 2014
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Upon accepting a guilty plea and entering it in the record,
does a trial court nevertheless retain the inherent authority to
withhold a finding of guilt and defer the disposition? That
question is the issue in this appeal. We answer the question in
the affirmative because until the court enters an order
adjudicating guilt, it has not exercised its judicial power to
render judgment. Therefore, we will reverse the judgment of the
Court of Appeals of Virginia.
I. RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
In March 2011, William Gabriel Starrs was indicted in the
Circuit Court of Fairfax County on two counts of felony
possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute,
in violation of Code § 18.2-248. Three months later, Starrs
entered pleas of guilty to both felonies pursuant to similar
plea agreements. See Rule 3A:8. In those agreements, Starrs
admitted that he committed the offenses charged and agreed that
"the only issue to be decided by the [c]ourt [was] punishment."
The plea agreements also included the following proviso: "I
reserve the right to seek a disposition based upon the . . .
decision in Hernandez [v. Commonwealth, 281 Va. 222, 707 S.E.2d
273 (2011)]."
After Starrs entered his guilty pleas, the circuit court
entered an order, stating in relevant part:
The [c]ourt accepted the pleas of guilty and
made them a part of the record after . . .
determining that the pleas were made
voluntarily and with full understanding of
the nature of the charges and the
consequences of the pleas.
In consideration of [Starrs'] pleas of
guilty and the evidence proffered, the
[c]ourt finds that there is overwhelming and
sufficient evidence for a finding of guilt.
At the request of [Starrs], the [c]ourt
withheld a finding of guilt pending
sentencing in order to permit [Starrs] to
make an argument related to the . . .
decision in . . . Hernandez. By withholding
a finding of guilt, it is not the [c]ourt's
intention to express a view as to what
decision the [c]ourt will ultimately make in
this matter.
In subsequent memoranda, Starrs asked the circuit court to
withhold a finding of guilt and continue the case for a period
of time, release him under certain terms and conditions, and at
the end of that period to "consider dismissal of the case in
lieu of a conviction." At the sentencing hearing, Starrs made
the same request and, citing Hernandez, argued that the circuit
court had the inherent authority to continue the case and
consider dismissal of the charges. In response to questions
from the circuit court, Starrs agreed that his "entire purpose"
2
in asking for this type of disposition was "in the hope that
[the circuit court] would ultimately dismiss the charges."
The circuit court denied Starrs' request. Citing Taylor v.
Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 435, 710 S.E.2d 518 (2011), the court
concluded that in the absence of a motion by the Commonwealth,
it did not have the authority to dismiss the criminal charges
then or later because "the defendant's plea[s] establishe[d] the
defendant's guilt." The court noted that it also had the
authority to reject the defendant's pleas, but that such
rejection would not result in a dismissal of the charges. The
court stated:
Since ultimate dismissal is [Starrs']
goal in seeking a deferral of entry of a
judgment and since I find I do not have the
authority to do that, the request for
deferral is denied.
I want to be absolutely clear that I am
not exercising my discretion here; I find I
do not have discretion. I have discretion
to continue this; I can absolutely continue
this for two years.
But at the end of two years, my only
option would be to sentence [Starrs] on the
charges in which he entered pleas of guilty.
And, as [Starrs] has confirmed, the whole
purpose in seeking the deferral is
ultimately to obtain a dismissal.
. . . .
Given that [Starrs] has admitted his
guilt and has entered a guilty plea and the
Commonwealth has proffered sufficient
evidence in support of his plea, I could not
3
find that the evidence was lacking and
warranted dismissal. And if dismissal is not
an option, there's no bona fide reason to
defer disposition.
The circuit court subsequently entered an order finding
Starrs guilty and sentencing him to five years of imprisonment
on each charge, to run concurrently, with all time suspended for
five years.
Starrs appealed the circuit court's judgment to the Court
of Appeals of Virginia, arguing that the circuit court erred in
finding it lacked the authority "to withhold a finding of guilt
and defer adjudication . . . for possible future dismissal of
the charges." Starrs v. Commonwealth, 61 Va. App. 39, 43, 733
S.E.2d 142, 144 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Recognizing that a trial court has the inherent authority under
Hernandez to continue a case for future disposition, the Court
of Appeals nevertheless rejected Starrs' argument that a trial
court can dismiss criminal charges after accepting a defendant's
guilty plea but before entry of a written order adjudicating
guilt. Id. at 45, 733 S.E.2d at 145. Citing Kibert v.
Commonwealth, 216 Va. 660, 222 S.E.2d 790 (1976), and Hobson v.
Youell, 177 Va. 906, 15 S.E.2d 76 (1941), the Court of Appeals
held that Starrs' guilty pleas, accepted by the circuit court
and entered in the record, constituted convictions for the
offenses with which he was charged. Starrs, 61 Va. App. at 46,
4
733 S.E.2d at 145-46. The Court of Appeals further held that
"[w]hen the [circuit] court accepted [Starrs'] knowing and
voluntary guilty pleas and entered his guilty pleas on the
record, it thereafter had no discretion to dismiss the charges
against him." Id. at 46, 733 S.E.2d at 146.
We granted Starrs this appeal.
II. ANALYSIS
We have previously held that "during the interval between
the conclusion of the evidence and the entry of a written order
adjudicating [a] defendant guilty, [a trial court has] the
inherent power, in the exercise of its discretion, to take the
matter under advisement and to continue the case for future
disposition." Hernandez, 281 Va. at 226, 707 S.E.2d at 275.
The issue now before us is whether the circuit court, after
accepting Starrs' guilty pleas and entering them in the record
through a written order, likewise retained the inherent
authority to withhold a finding of guilt and defer the
disposition. That issue requires us to determine whether the
circuit court rendered a judgment adjudicating Starrs guilty of
the charged offenses. These are questions of law that we review
de novo. Id. at 224, 707 S.E.2d at 274.
To answer these questions, we must revisit the judiciary's
essential function and inherent power. Under the Constitution
of Virginia, judicial power is "vested in a Supreme Court and in
5
such other courts of original or appellate jurisdiction
subordinate to the Supreme Court as the General Assembly may
from time to time establish." Va. Const. art. VI, § 1.
"[T]he essential function of the judiciary [is] the act of
rendering judgment in matters properly before it." Moreau v.
Fuller, 276 Va. 127, 136, 661 S.E.2d 841, 846 (2008). "'The
rendition of a judgment is the judicial act of the court.'" In
re Commonwealth's Attorney, 265 Va. 313, 319, 576 S.E.2d 458,
462 (2003) (quoting Rollins v. Bazile, 205 Va. 613, 617, 139
S.E.2d 114, 117 (1964)). "A judgment is the determination by a
court of the rights of the parties, as those rights presently
exist, upon matters submitted to it in an action or proceeding."
Rollins, 205 Va. at 617, 139 S.E.2d at 117 (internal quotation
marks omitted).
We have explained that
[t]he judiciary's inherent power derives
from its existence as an institution
entrusted with the function of rendering
judgment. To deny this function is to deny
the very institution itself. The court's
inherent power has been recognized to extend
to matters "incident to the exercise of the
judicial power which is vested" in it.
Moreau, 276 Va. at 136, 661 S.E.2d at 846 (quoting Button v.
Day, 204 Va. 547, 553, 132 S.E.2d 292, 296 (1963)).
6
Asserting that Moreau, Hernandez, and In re Commonwealth's
Attorney are dispositive, Starrs argues that the circuit court
had the inherent authority to defer the disposition of his case
and consider a dismissal of the charges. Starrs contends that
the circuit court's power to render judgment, including a
judgment dismissing the charges, remained until the court
entered a written order adjudicating guilt. Thus, according to
Starrs, neither a finding that evidence is sufficient to support
a conviction nor the acceptance of a guilty plea strips a trial
court of its inherent authority to decide "whether, when and how
to render a judgment."
In Moreau, a juvenile and domestic relations district court
judge (the district judge) found evidence sufficient to convict
the defendant but withheld a judgment of conviction, taking the
matter under advisement for disposition at a later date. 276
Va. at 131, 661 S.E.2d at 843. A circuit court issued a writ of
mandamus requested by the Commonwealth’s Attorney, holding that
"a determination as to the guilt or innocence of the accused
[was] a ministerial and not a discretionary judicial function"
once the district judge found sufficient evidence to convict.
Id. at 132-33, 661 S.E.2d at 844.
On appeal, this Court reversed the circuit court's judgment
and vacated the writ of mandamus. Id. at 138, 661 S.E.2d at
847. We concluded that after hearing evidence in the underlying
7
criminal case, "it was within the inherent authority of the
[district] court to 'take the matter under advisement' or
'continue the case for disposition' at a later date" because
"[s]uch practices involve the essence of rendering judgment."
Id. at 137, 661 S.E.2d at 846-47. We further held that even
after finding evidence sufficient to convict, a court's
"determination as to the guilt or innocence of the accused" is
not merely a ministerial function. Id. at 138, 661 S.E.2d at
847. "The very essence of adjudication and entry of judgment
involves the discretionary power of the court." 1 Id.
Similarly, in Hernandez, we held that "[u]ntil [a trial]
court enters a written order finding the defendant guilty of a
crime, the court has the inherent authority to take the matter
under advisement or to continue the case for disposition at a
later date." 281 Va. at 226, 707 S.E.2d at 275. We further
1
The Court added a caveat, however. "What may in a proper
case be reasonably subject to challenge is whether the judge may
decline to render judgment and continue the case with or without
terms akin to probation status with the promise from the court
of a particular disposition at a later date." Id. at 137, 661
S.E.2d at 847. That question was not at issue in Moreau because
the underlying order merely stated that the evidence was
sufficient to convict and the case was continued to a date
certain without terms, conditions or promise of a certain
disposition. Id. at 138, 661 S.E.2d at 847. The Court
reiterated this caveat in Hernandez, which also did not involve
such a situation. 281 Va. at 225, 707 S.E.2d at 274.
By contrast, in Maldonado-Mejia v. Commonwealth, 286 Va.
___, ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, ___ (2013) (this day decided), the
Commonwealth and the defendant entered into a plea agreement
providing for such a disposition.
8
held that a trial court's statement that the evidence was
sufficient to convict does not amount to a "judgment of
conviction" or "a formal adjudication of guilt." Id. at 225-26,
707 S.E.2d at 275. However, "once a court has entered a
judgment of conviction of a crime, the question of the penalty
to be imposed is entirely within the province of the
legislature, and the court has no inherent authority to depart
from the range of punishment legislatively prescribed." Id. at
225, 707 S.E.2d at 275. Thus, we held that the trial court in
Hernandez erred when it concluded, after finding the evidence
sufficient to convict at the conclusion of a bench trial, that
it did not have the inherent authority to
defer disposition of the case for a period
of time to be fixed by the court, to
continue the defendant’s bond . . . subject
to such conditions as the court might
prescribe, and at the end of that period to
consider dismissal of the case in lieu of a
conviction if the defendant complied with
all the prescribed conditions.
Id. at 224, 707 S.E.2d at 274.
While neither Moreau nor Hernandez involved a guilty plea,
we have held that mandamus does not lie to compel a trial court
"to enter a judgment of guilt and . . . proceed to sentencing"
when a defendant pleads guilty to the charged offense. In re
Commonwealth's Attorney, 265 Va. at 315, 576 S.E.2d at 460. In
that case, two defendants pled guilty to grand larceny. Id. at
9
315-16, 576 S.E.2d at 460. The trial court, however, did not
expressly accept either plea, instead taking them under
advisement. Id. To compel the trial court to enter findings of
guilt according to the defendants' pleas, the Commonwealth's
Attorney filed petitions for a writ of prohibition and/or
mandamus in this Court. Id. at 315-16, 576 S.E.2d at 460-61.
The Commonwealth's Attorney argued that once the defendants had
pled guilty, "the [trial] court had 'nothing to do' except enter
judgment and fix punishment" and that there was no authority for
a trial court "to defer or take under advisement a finding of
guilt after a defendant pleads guilty." Id. at 318, 576 S.E.2d
at 462.
The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that a writ of
mandamus did not lie because the Commonwealth's Attorney was
requesting us "to fix and prescribe the judgment to be
rendered." 2 Id. at 319, 576 S.E.2d at 462 (internal quotation
marks omitted). The Commonwealth's Attorney "ask[ed] us to
control [the trial court's] exercise of judicial discretion by
prescribing the precise judgment to be entered, a judgment of
guilt." Id. We explained, however, that "[r]equiring a court
or judge to enter a certain judgment unquestionably infringes
upon the exercise of judicial discretion." Id.
2
For reasons not relevant to the present appeal, the Court
also held that a writ of prohibition did not lie. Id. at 317,
576 S.E.2d at 461.
10
Unlike Starrs, the Commonwealth contends that the case now
before us differs from Moreau, Hernandez, and In re
Commonwealth's Attorney in one fundamental respect: in a written
order, the circuit court accepted Starrs' guilty pleas and
entered them on the record. According to the Commonwealth, that
is a legally significant act under Virginia law that
differentiates this case from those in which a trial court
determines that evidence is sufficient to convict, or takes a
defendant's guilty plea under advisement. Relying on Kibert,
the Commonwealth argues that a guilty plea "'accepted and
entered by the court[] is a conviction or the equivalent of a
conviction of the offense to which it is directed.'" 216 Va. at
664, 222 S.E.2d at 793 (quoting Crutchfield v. Commonwealth, 187
Va. 291, 296, 46 S.E.2d 340, 342 (1948)). Thus, the
Commonwealth contends that the circuit court had no authority to
do anything other than impose the punishment prescribed by law.
As the Commonwealth asserts, we have held that "'a
voluntary and intelligent plea of guilty by an accused is, in
reality, a self-supplied conviction authorizing imposition of
the punishment fixed by law.'" Id. (quoting Peyton v. King, 210
Va. 194, 196, 169 S.E.2d 569, 571 (1969)); see also Hern v. Cox,
212 Va. 644, 646, 186 S.E.2d 85, 87 (1972) (rejecting a habeas
corpus petitioner's claim that the record failed to show a
conviction because the trial court implicitly accepted and
11
entered the petitioner's guilty plea, as evidenced by the
court's imposition of punishment). "The effect of the plea of
guilty . . . is a record admission of whatever is well charged
in the indictment. . . . It admits all the criminating facts
alleged and the statutory elements of the offense charged."
Hobson, 177 Va. at 912, 15 S.E.2d at 78 (internal quotation
marks omitted).
In Kibert, we rejected the argument that a trial court was
required to hear evidence to sustain a conviction based upon a
guilty plea. We explained that "a 'plea of guilty eliminates
the necessity for proof, in so far as fixing the degree of the
crime is concerned.'" 216 Va. at 664, 222 S.E.2d at 792
(quoting Hobson, 177 Va. at 913, 15 S.E.2d at 78-79). A
defendant pleading guilty supplies "the necessary proof," and
evidence therefore is generally not required for a trial court
to proceed to judgment upon a guilty plea. Hobson, 177 Va. at
912-13, 15 S.E.2d at 78; Kibert, 216 Va. at 664, 222 S.E.2d at
793 ("[T]he introduction of evidence to sustain a conviction
upon a guilty plea is . . . unnecessary in any criminal case.").
We have repeatedly held, however, that a trial court may
hear evidence "as to aggravation or mitigation of the offense."
Hobson, 177 Va. at 912-13, 15 S.E.2d at 78. As we explained in
Kibert, "[i]n accepting a plea of guilty," a trial court is
always "free to hear the evidence [it] deems necessary to an
12
understanding of the case and to the fixing of an appropriate
sentence." 216 Va. at 664, 222 S.E.2d at 793. Citing Smyth v.
Morrison, 200 Va. 728, 107 S.E.2d 430 (1959), we further
explained that "a trial court has power, in its discretion, to
hear evidence upon a plea of guilty and to convict the accused
of a lesser offense." Id. at 665, 222 S.E.2d at 793. "The
purpose of hearing evidence is to determine whether an accused
is guilty or not and the measure of guilt." Smyth, 200 Va. at
734, 107 S.E.2d at 434.
Our precedents make clear that a guilty plea obviates the
need for evidence to establish guilt, but a trial court may
nevertheless hear evidence and actually convict the accused of a
lesser offense. Thus, the mere acceptance and entry of a guilty
plea does not constitute "a formal adjudication of guilt."
Hernandez, 281 Va. at 225-26, 707 S.E.2d at 275. 3 If it did, a
trial court would have no authority to hear evidence and convict
of a lesser offense. See Smyth, 200 Va. at 734, 107 S.E.2d at
434-35. Rather, a defendant's guilty plea supplies the
necessary proof and a trial court, after accepting and entering
a guilty plea, may "proceed to judgment," i.e., may proceed to
adjudicate the defendant guilty and impose the punishment
3
In Maldonado-Mejia, 286 Va. at ___, ___ S.E.2d at ___
(this day decided), the trial court accepted and entered the
defendant's guilty plea but did not enter a written order
adjudicating the defendant guilty of the charged offense.
13
prescribed by law. Hobson, 177 Va. at 912-13, 15 S.E.2d at 78;
see also Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220, 223-24 (1927)
("Like a verdict of a jury[,] [a] plea of guilty . . . . is
conclusive" and "the court has nothing to do but give judgment
and sentence.") (emphasis added). The same is required when a
jury has returned a verdict of guilty: the trial court must
still enter judgment on the verdict. See Ramdass v.
Commonwealth, 248 Va. 518, 520, 450 S.E.2d 360, 361 (1994); see
also Lundin v. Superior Court for King Cnty., 174 P. 473, 474
(Wash. 1918) ("[I]t is elementary that a plea of guilty has the
same effect in law as a verdict of guilty.").
While a guilty plea is "a self-supplied conviction,”
Kibert, 216 Va. at 664, 222 S.E.2d at 793 (internal quotation
marks omitted), it is only when a trial court has entered "a
written order finding the defendant guilty," Hernandez, 281 Va.
at 226, 707 S.E.2d at 275, that it has made a "determination of
the rights of the parties upon [a] matter[] submitted to it in a
proceeding." 4 In re Commonwealth's Attorney, 265 Va. at 319, 576
4
We have construed the term "conviction" in several
different contexts. In Ramdass, when determining the meaning of
the term "convicted" in Code § 53.1-151(B1) concerning
ineligibility for parole, we held that a jury verdict of guilty
upon which no judgment had been entered could not be "considered
as a conviction under" that statute. 248 Va. at 520, 450 S.E.2d
at 361. Similarly, in Smith v. Commonwealth, 134 Va. 589, 113
S.E. 707 (1922), the Court concluded that when a defendant pled
not guilty, the term "convicted" in former Code § 2705
addressing the removal of an elected or appointed official meant
14
S.E.2d at 462. Until the court enters such an order, it "has
the inherent authority to take the matter under advisement or to
continue the case for disposition at a later date." Hernandez,
281 Va. at 226, 707 S.E.2d at 275. Once a trial court enters a
formal adjudication of guilt, it must impose the punishment
prescribed by the legislature; it has no inherent authority to
depart from that range of punishment. Id. at 225, 707 S.E.2d at
275; see also Moreau, 276 Va. at 136, 661 S.E.2d at 846 ("[T]he
judiciary may not assume the function of statutory enactment, a
power unique to the legislative function."); In re Commonwealth
of Virginia, 229 Va. 159, 163, 326 S.E.2d 695, 698 (1985)
(issuing writ of mandamus to compel a trial court to impose a
mandatory sentence because the court had no authority to refuse
to do so).
"convicted by judgment, and require[d] a judgment of conviction,
in addition to the verdict of the jury." Id. at 592, 113 S.E.
at 708.
In contrast, we held in Jewel v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 430,
536 S.E.2d 905 (2000), that "for the limited purposes of Code §
19.2-269," a defendant's guilty plea accepted by the trial court
constituted a "conviction" and an order entering a finding of
guilt was unnecessary. Id. at 433, 536 S.E.2d at 906. We
concluded that the decisions in Smith and Ramdass were not
dispositive, in part, because "they did not involve a guilty
plea entered by the defendant in the prior proceedings." Id. at
432, 536 S.E.2d at 906. To the extent that Jewel can be read to
suggest that a trial court formally adjudicates a defendant's
guilt by accepting a plea of guilty and entering it in the
record, it is overruled.
15
We therefore conclude that the circuit court, upon
accepting and entering Starrs' guilty pleas in a written order,
still retained the inherent authority to withhold a finding of
guilt, to defer the disposition, and to consider an outcome
other than a felony conviction. Indeed, the court stated in its
written order that it "withheld a finding of guilt pending
sentencing in order to permit [Starrs] to make an argument
related to the . . . decision in . . . Hernandez." To hold that
the circuit court, after accepting and entering Starrs' guilty
pleas, had no discretion to do anything other than impose the
legislatively prescribed punishment would be tantamount to
controlling the "exercise of judicial discretion by prescribing
the precise judgment to be entered, a judgment of guilt." In re
Commonwealth's Attorney, 265 Va. at 319, 576 S.E.2d at 462.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, we conclude that the circuit
court's accepting and entering Starrs' guilty pleas in a written
order was not a formal adjudication of guilt. Thus, the court
erred in concluding that it no longer had the inherent authority
to consider any disposition other than to impose the
legislatively prescribed punishment.
In reaching this conclusion, we emphasize, however, that
while the power to try criminal offenses and to impose the
prescribed punishment is "judicial," the "power to enforce" does
16
not include the inherent "discretion to permanently refuse to do
so." Ex parte United States, 242 U.S. 27, 41-42 (1916).
[I]f it be that the plain legislative
command fixing a specific punishment for
crime is subject to be permanently set aside
by an implied judicial power upon
considerations extraneous to the legality of
the conviction, it would seem necessarily to
follow that there could be likewise implied
a discretionary authority to permanently
refuse to try a criminal charge because of
the conclusion that a particular act made
criminal by law ought not to be treated as
criminal. And thus it would come to pass
that the possession by the judicial
department of power to permanently refuse to
enforce a law would result in the
destruction of the conceded powers of the
other departments.
Id. at 42.
Our decision today does not traverse the separation of
powers and "enter the domain of penology [and] questions of
legislative policy." Gore v. United States, 357 U.S. 386, 393
(1958) (citation omitted). Until a trial court enters an order
adjudicating guilt, it has not yet exercised its essential
function of rendering judgment. Once it has done so,
separation-of-powers principles require that punishment be
imposed according to the legislature's prescription. See id.
We therefore will reverse the judgment of the Court of
Appeals, vacate Starrs' sentences, and remand this case to the
Court of Appeals with directions that it remand the case to the
17
circuit court for further proceedings in accordance with this
opinion.
Reversed, vacated and remanded.
JUSTICE McCLANAHAN, with whom JUSTICE MIMS joins, dissenting.
The issue in this appeal is not whether a trial court may
defer disposition of a criminal case after acceptance of a plea
agreement. Rather, the issue is whether the trial court in this
case erred in holding that it did not have authority to dismiss
the charges against Starrs after accepting the plea agreements
and guilty pleas in which Starrs admitted he committed the
offenses charged. 1
Pursuant to Rule 3A:8, the Commonwealth's Attorney entered
into plea agreements with Starrs wherein Starrs "admitt[ed] that
[he] committed the offense as charged and that the only issue to
be decided by the Court is punishment." Upon presentment of the
plea agreements, the trial court had the discretion to accept
the agreements, reject the agreements, or defer its decision as
to the acceptance or rejection of the agreements. Rule
3A:8(c)(2). The trial court did not reject the agreements or
1
The trial court expressly recognized that it had
discretion to continue the case, stating, "I have discretion to
continue this; I can absolutely continue this for two years."
The trial court denied Starrs' request for deferral because the
ultimate disposition sought by Starrs was dismissal of the
charges against him.
18
defer its decision on whether to accept or reject the
agreements. The trial court accepted the agreements and Starrs'
pleas of guilty and entered them into the record after finding
"overwhelming and sufficient evidence for a finding of guilt."
Pursuant to Rule 3A:8(c)(3), the trial court was thereafter
required to "inform the defendant that it will embody in its
judgment and sentence the disposition provided for in the
agreement[s]." Thus, the trial court fully complied with the
procedure governing pleas and plea agreements set forth in Rule
3A:8.
Despite the trial court's acceptance of Starrs' guilty
pleas and the plea agreements, and in the absence of a motion to
withdraw his guilty pleas under Code § 19.2-296 or set aside the
plea agreements, Starrs sought relief from his guilty pleas and
the plea agreements. Specifically, Starrs requested that the
trial court "continue this case for a period of time, place him
on terms of release, and upon review, consider whether to
dismiss the case without any convictions." The majority
concludes the trial court erred in holding it had no authority
to dismiss the charges since this Court has previously stated
that "[u]ntil [a trial] court enters a written order finding the
defendant guilty of a crime, the court has the inherent
authority to take the matter under advisement or to continue the
case for disposition at a later date," Hernandez v.
19
Commonwealth, 281 Va. 222, 226, 707 S.E.2d 273, 275 (2011).
However, the majority's holding ignores the fact that the trial
court already exercised its authority in deciding to accept the
plea agreements rather than reject the agreements or defer its
decision on whether to accept or reject the agreements. When a
plea bargain is reached, the acceptance of the plea agreement is
the "adjudicative element" of the criminal justice process.
Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971).
In my view, the language from Hernandez relied upon by the
majority has no application to this case. When this Court
stated that the circuit court has the inherent power to continue
a case for future dismissal "during the interval between the
conclusion of the evidence and entry of a written order
adjudicating the defendant guilty," the Court was clearly
addressing the factual scenario in which a defendant has pled
not guilty. Hernandez, 281 Va. at 226, 707 S.E.2d at 275. The
Court did not address the effect of a guilty plea entered
pursuant to a plea agreement, both of which are accepted by the
trial court under Rule 3A:8. 2
2
Additionally, because Moreau and In re Commonwealth's
Attorney only recognize that a trial court may not be compelled
by mandamus to enter judgment, neither case supports the
principle that a trial court may dismiss charges without the
Commonwealth's consent when the defendant has pled guilty
pursuant to plea agreements that have been accepted by the
court. See Moreau v. Fuller, 276 Va. 127, 138-39, 661 S.E.2d
841, 847-48 (2008) (adjudication and judgment not subject to
20
The importance of the role of plea bargaining in our system
of criminal justice is well-established.
The disposition of criminal charges by agreement
between the prosecutor and the accused, sometimes
loosely called "plea bargaining," is an essential
component of the administration of justice.
Properly administered, it is to be encouraged. If
every criminal charge were subjected to a full-
scale trial, the States and the Federal Government
would need to multiply by many times the number of
judges and court facilities.
Disposition of charges after plea discussions is
not only an essential part of the process but a
highly desirable part for many reasons. It leads
to prompt and largely final disposition of most
criminal cases; it avoids much of the corrosive
impact of enforced idleness during pretrial
confinement for those who are denied release
pending trial; it protects the public from those
accused persons who are prone to continue criminal
conduct even while on pretrial release; and, by
shortening the time between charge and
disposition, it enhances whatever may be the
rehabilitative prospects of the guilty when they
are ultimately imprisoned.
Santobello, 404 U.S. at 260-61; see also Johnson v.
Commonwealth, 214 Va. 515, 517-18, 201 S.E.2d 594, 596 (1974).
"In Virginia, as well as in our sister states, the system of
criminal justice cannot function promptly and effectively unless
mandamus since it involves discretionary power of court); In re
Commonwealth's Attorney, 265 Va. 313, 318-19, 576 S.E.2d 458,
461 (2003) (mandamus will not lie to fix and prescribe judgment
since such act involves discretionary power of the court). In
this case, the Commonwealth's attorney did not seek to compel
the trial court to accept the plea agreements or enter judgment.
The trial court, in the exercise of its discretion, accepted the
plea agreements and the guilty pleas and entered judgment based
on that acceptance.
21
the vast majority of all criminal cases are disposed of on pleas
of guilty." Id. at 517, 201 S.E.2d at 596. "It is of the utmost
importance that the integrity of the plea bargaining process be
assured because any failure in this regard would result in
making this most desirable process less useful and productive
than in the past." Id. at 518, 201 S.E.2d at 596.
The integrity of the plea bargaining process cannot be
assured when a trial court may relieve a defendant from a guilty
plea in the absence of a motion to withdraw and dismiss the
charges without the consent of the Commonwealth. 3 See In re
Horan, 271 Va. 258, 263-64, 634 S.E.2d 675, 679 (2006). "After
the defendant has sworn in open court that he actually committed
the crimes, after he has stated that he is pleading guilty
because he is guilty, after the court has found a factual basis
for the plea, and after the court has explicitly announced that
it accepts the plea," a defendant is not permitted to "withdraw
his guilty plea simply on a lark." United States v. Hyde, 520
U.S. 670, 676 (1997).
Were withdrawal automatic in every case where the
defendant decided to alter his tactics and present
his theory of the case to the jury, the guilty
plea would become a mere gesture, a temporary and
3
Pursuant to the separation of powers doctrine established under
the Constitution of Virginia, Commonwealth's Attorneys are
vested with the executive power to charge under applicable
criminal statutes and to decide whether to proceed with the
prosecution. See In re Horan, 271 Va. 258, 263-64, 634 S.E.2d
675, 679 (2006).
22
meaningless formality reversible at the
defendant's whim. In fact, however, a guilty plea
is no such trifle, but a grave and solemn act,
which is accepted only with care and discernment.
Id. at 677 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Yet, I believe the majority's holding will "degrade the
otherwise serious act of pleading guilty into something akin to
a move in a game of chess" since the Court has now recognized a
new avenue of relief from guilty pleas and plea agreements
outside the context of a motion to withdraw. Id.
In short, as the trial court expressed well:
Given that [Starrs] has admitted his
guilt and has entered a guilty plea and the
Commonwealth has proffered sufficient
evidence in support of his plea, I could not
find that the evidence was lacking and
warranted dismissal. And if dismissal is not
an option, there's no bona fide reason to
defer disposition.
Because the trial court did not err in this holding, I would
affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
23