Daniel Matthew Lowe v. Commonwealth

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Humphreys, Agee and Kelsey
Argued at Salem, Virginia
DANIEL MATTHEW LOWE
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 0036-02-3 JUDGE G. STEVEN AGEE
JANUARY 14, 2003
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SMYTH COUNTY
A. Dow Owens, Judge Designate
Brian M. Ely (Jessee, Read & Ely, P.C., on
brief), for appellant.
John H. McLees, Senior Assistant Attorney
General (Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General,
on brief), for appellee.
Daniel Matthew Lowe (Lowe) appeals a ruling of the Circuit
Court of Smyth County denying his motion to vacate a previous
order of the Circuit Court of Tazewell County in which he was
adjudicated an habitual offender. For the reasons that follow,
we affirm the ruling of the trial court.
I. BACKGROUND
On March 18, 1991, Judge Donald Mullins of the Circuit
Court of Tazewell County found Lowe in violation of the terms of
his probation and revoked four years of his previously suspended
sentence. On April 25, 1991, while incarcerated in the Tazewell
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
County jail awaiting transport to a state correctional facility,
Lowe was personally served with an order to show cause why he
should not be adjudicated an habitual offender. The show cause
order had been issued the previous day by Judge Mullins. On
April 26, 1991, Lowe was transferred to Deep Meadow Correctional
Center to serve the remainder of his four-year sentence.
Lowe's habitual offender hearing was held in the Circuit
Court of Tazewell County on May 16, 1991, the day indicated on
his notice. Lowe was not present in person or represented by
counsel, and no guardian ad litem was appointed to represent
him. Judge Mullins presided and adjudicated Lowe an habitual
offender by an order dated June 6, 1991. The clerk of court
mailed a copy of the order to Lowe at the Powhatan Correctional
Center. Lowe was actually incarcerated elsewhere at that time.
On July 14, 2001, Lowe was arrested in Smyth County for
driving under the influence and driving after being adjudicated
an habitual offender. Lowe moved the Circuit Court of Smyth
County to vacate the 1991 habitual offender adjudication on the
grounds that it was procured by extrinsic fraud on the court.
He alleged his absence from the habitual offender proceeding
constituted extrinsic fraud on the court because the
Commonwealth knew of his incarceration and a guardian ad litem
was not appointed to protect his interests. Lowe entered a
conditional plea of guilty to the charge of driving after being
adjudicated an habitual offender, second offense, pursuant to a
- 2 -
plea agreement that preserved his right to appeal the trial
court's denial of his motion to vacate the 1991 adjudication
order. He now appeals to this Court. 1
II. ANALYSIS
In Pigg v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 756, 441 S.E.2d 216(1994) (en banc), this Court held that infancy under Code
§ 8.01-2(6)(b) is the only statutory disability that renders a
judgment void for failure to appoint a guardian ad litem under
Code § 8.01-9(A). We explicitly rejected the contention "that a
judgment entered against a person under any of the other
enumerated statutory disabilities is void ab initio if rendered
without the appointment of a guardian ad litem." 2 Id. at 760,
441 S.E.2d at 219; see also England v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App.
121, 442 S.E.2d 402 (1994) (holding that failure to appoint a
guardian ad litem in an habitual offender adjudication makes the
judgment voidable, not void). We also stated in Pigg that a
judgment against an alcoholic is voidable, not void, "just as a
judgment rendered against a convict is merely voidable." Pigg,
17 Va. App. at 762, 441 S.E.2d at 220.
The distinction between an action of
the court that is void ab initio rather than
merely voidable is that the former involves
1
As the parties are fully conversant with the record in
this case and because this memorandum opinion carries no
precedential value, only those facts necessary to a disposition
of this appeal are recited.
2
Lowe's disability, incarceration for a felony, arises
under Code § 8.01-2(6)(a).
- 3 -
the underlying authority of a court to act
on a matter whereas the latter involves
actions taken by a court which are in error.
An order is void ab initio if entered by a
court in the absence of jurisdiction of the
subject matter or over the parties, if the
character of the order is such that the
court had no power to render it, or if the
mode of procedure used by the court was one
that the court could "not lawfully adopt."
The lack of jurisdiction to enter an order
under any of these circumstances renders the
order a complete nullity and it may be
"impeached directly or collaterally by all
persons, anywhere, at any time, or in any
manner." . . . In contrast, an order is
merely voidable if it contains reversible
error made by the trial court.
Singh v. Mooney, 261 Va. 48, 51-52, 541 S.E.2d 549, 551 (2001)
(internal citations omitted).
As failure to appoint a guardian ad litem in the case of a
convict, like Lowe, renders an adjudication merely voidable, it
"may be set aside only (1) by motion to the trial court filed
within twenty-one days of its entry, as outlined in Rule 1:1,
(2) on direct appeal, or (3) by bill of review." Pigg, 17
Va. App. at 760 n.5, 441 S.E.2d at 219 n.5; see also Blunt v.
Lentz, 241 Va. 547, 404 S.E.2d 62 (1991); Rook v. Rook, 233 Va.
92, 353 S.E.2d 756 (1987). Having pursued none of the foregoing
options and seeking to avoid the outcome Pigg and England
mandate, Lowe alleges on appeal that the habitual offender
adjudication in the Circuit Court of Tazewell County was
procured by extrinsic fraud.
- 4 -
"Fraud consists of a false representation of a material
fact, made intentionally and knowingly, with the intent to
mislead, upon which the defrauded person relies to his
detriment." Peet v. Peet, 16 Va. App. 323, 326, 429 S.E.2d 487,
490 (1993). Fraud may be extrinsic or intrinsic.
"Extrinsic fraud" exists when conduct prevents "a fair
submission of the controversy to the court." Id. (citing Jones
v. Willard, 224 Va. 602, 607, 299 S.E.2d 504, 508 (1983)). A
judgment procured by extrinsic fraud is void and subject to
either direct or collateral attack. Id.; see also Jones, 224
Va. at 607-08, 299 S.E.2d at 508; Holmes v. Holmes, 8 Va. App.
457, 458-59, 382 S.E.2d 27, 28 (1989).
Conversely,
"[i]ntrinsic fraud" includes perjury, use of
forged documents, or other means of
obscuring facts presented before the court
and whose truth or falsity as to the issues
being litigated are passed upon by the trier
of fact. . . . When a party discovers that
a judgment has been obtained by intrinsic
fraud, the party must act by direct attack
or appeal to rectify the alleged wrong and
cannot wait to assail the judgment
collaterally whenever it is enforced.
Peet, 16 Va. App. at 326-27, 429 S.E.2d at 490; see also Jones,
224 Va. at 607, 299 S.E.2d at 508.
Lowe argues that extrinsic fraud was committed upon the
Circuit Court of Tazewell County due to his disability
(incarceration) at the time of his habitual offender
adjudication, his absence from the hearing, and the court's
- 5 -
failure to appoint a guardian ad litem. Due to this extrinsic
fraud, Lowe contends his habitual offender adjudication in the
Circuit Court of Tazewell County was void ab initio and subject
to collateral attack in his subsequent Smyth County proceeding.
We disagree.
The record supports the conclusion Lowe's status as an
incarcerated felon was a material fact clearly known by the
court. The same circuit court judge who revoked Lowe's
suspended sentence presided over the habitual offender
proceeding two months later. The court mailed a copy of Lowe's
habitual offender adjudication to the Powhatan Correctional
Center which further evidences the court was cognizant of Lowe's
incarceration.
Lowe has offered no evidence that the Commonwealth's
Attorney made any effort, intentional or otherwise, to conceal
the fact of his incarceration from the court. Furthermore, if
the Commonwealth's Attorney had made such a representation,
intentionally or unintentionally, there could have been no
detrimental reliance because the court knew Lowe's true status.
Where no misrepresentation has been made, and no detrimental
reliance has occurred, there can be no fraud. It is apparent
from the record there was no fraud on the Circuit Court of
Tazewell County. 3
3
Assuming arguendo, that a fraud had been perpetrated on
the Tazewell County Circuit Court, there is no showing that the
- 6 -
Even if we were to assume that Lowe's absence from the
habitual offender proceeding constituted a fraud on the court,
Lowe's argument ultimately fails. Lowe acknowledges he received
notice of the habitual offender proceeding. Therefore, he was
on notice of the hearing date and could have taken steps at that
time to request a continuance, a transportation order, or the
appointment of a guardian ad litem. His absence, if it
constituted fraud, would be intrinsic, not extrinsic, and
"[w]hen a party discovers that a judgment has been obtained by
intrinsic fraud, the party must act by direct attack or appeal
to rectify the alleged wrong and cannot wait to assail the
judgment collaterally whenever it is enforced." Peet, 16
Va. App. at 326, 429 S.E.2d at 490 (citing Jones, 224 Va. at
607, 299 S.E.2d at 508). Lowe failed to attack his habitual
offender adjudication directly within the time limits set forth
under the law. He cannot now challenge the outcome of that
proceeding collaterally.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons previously stated, we affirm the decision
of the Smyth County Circuit Court denying Lowe's motion to
vacate.
Affirmed.
court detrimentally relied on Lowe's absence or incarceration
status in rendering its adjudication order. Lowe neither
proffered nor introduced any evidence that the adjudication
order was incorrect.
- 7 -