Joseph Isaac McDonald v. Commonwealth

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Humphreys, Clements and Agee
Argued at Richmond, Virginia
JOSEPH ISAAC McDONALD
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 1853-01-2 JUDGE JEAN HARRISON CLEMENTS
OCTOBER 22, 2002
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
Thomas N. Nance, Judge
Craig W. Stallard, Assistant Public Defender
(Office of the Public Defender, on brief),
for appellant.
Virginia B. Theisen, Assistant Attorney
General (Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General,
on brief), for appellee.
Joseph Isaac McDonald was indicted and convicted in a jury
trial of two counts of robbery, in violation of Code § 18.2-58,
and two counts of use of a firearm in the commission of robbery,
in violation of Code § 18.2-53.1. The sole issue on appeal is
whether the trial court erred in not permitting McDonald to
examine the prospective jurors during voir dire with respect to
the specific sentencing ranges for the charged offenses. Finding
no error, we affirm the convictions.
As the parties are fully conversant with the record in this
case and because this memorandum opinion carries no precedential
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
value, this opinion recites only those facts and incidents of the
proceedings as necessary to the parties' understanding of the
disposition of this appeal.
During voir dire, McDonald sought to inform the members of
the jury panel of the specific statutory range of punishment for
each of the charged offenses. Ruling that such information was
"not relevant at this point in the case," the trial court refused
to permit McDonald to discuss the specific sentencing ranges. The
trial court did, however, permit McDonald to inquire generally
about the prospective jurors' ability to consider the full range
of potential punishment.
McDonald contends the trial court's refusal to permit him to
examine the prospective jurors with respect to the specific
penalty ranges denied him the opportunity to determine their
impartiality on the question of punishment. Thus, he concludes,
his constitutional and statutory rights to an impartial jury were
denied.
During the pendency of this appeal, the Supreme Court issued
its opinion in Commonwealth v. Hill, 264 Va. 315, 568 S.E.2d 673
(2002), which is fully dispositive of the instant case. The Court
held in Hill that
neither the defendant nor the Commonwealth in
a non-capital criminal prosecution has a
constitutional or statutory right to ask the
members of a jury panel questions about the
range of punishment that may be imposed upon
a defendant if he is ultimately convicted of
- 2 -
the crimes charged or of lesser included
offenses.
Id. at 320, 568 S.E.2d at ___.
Thus, because the case before us is not a capital case, we
hold the trial court did not err in not permitting McDonald to
examine the members of the jury panel during voir dire about the
specific sentencing ranges for the charged offenses. Accordingly,
we affirm McDonald's convictions.
Affirmed.
- 3 -