Commonwealth v. Beattie

Fairfax County Circuit Court

Commonwealth v. Beattie

34 Va. Cir. 187, 1994 Va. Cir. LEXIS 8

CourtFairfax County Circuit Court

DecidedJuly 5, 1994

DocketCase No. (Law) 130659

StatusPublished

This text of 34 Va. Cir. 187 (Commonwealth v. Beattie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Fairfax County Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Beattie, 34 Va. Cir. 187, 1994 Va. Cir. LEXIS 8 (Va. Super. Ct. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

By Judge F. Bruce Bach

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Rule to Show Cause why he should not be adjudged an habitual offender under Virginia Code § 46.2-351. The Court sustains the motion.

The Commonwealth submitted three abstracts of conviction in accordance with § 46.2-352. Under Nesselrodt v. Commonwealth, 444 S.E.2d 261 (Va. App. 1994), each abstract must satisfy the requirements of § 46.2-386, including the requirement that the abstract be “certified by the general district court . . . judge or clerk.” Certifications which do not establish the signer’s legal authority to act for the Clerk of Court, are deficient. Carroll v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 686 (1990). Accordingly, this Court disregards the abstract from the General District Court of Prince William County which contains the following certification:

I certify this as a true abstract of the records of this Court as it relates to the Charge, Judgment and Penalty.

/s/ Terry King 10/19/90

Authorized Signature Date

Terry King is not the Clerk of the Court, and the abstract “does not state that she is a deputy clerk, nor does it contain initials or other indicia to demonstrate that she is a deputy clerk.” Id. at 140. This cause of action is dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By Judge F. Bruce Bach

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Rule to Show Cause why he should not be adjudged an habitual offender under Virginia Code § 46.2-351. The Court sustains the motion.

The Commonwealth submitted three abstracts of conviction in accordance with § 46.2-352. Under Nesselrodt v. Commonwealth, 444 S.E.2d 261 (Va. App. 1994), each abstract must satisfy the requirements of § 46.2-386, including the requirement that the abstract be “certified by the general district court . . . judge or clerk.” Certifications which do not establish the signer’s legal authority to act for the Clerk of Court, are deficient. Carroll v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 686 (1990). Accordingly, this Court disregards the abstract from the General District Court of Prince William County which contains the following certification:

I certify this as a true abstract of the records of this Court as it relates to the Charge, Judgment and Penalty.

/s/ Terry King 10/19/90

Authorized Signature Date

Terry King is not the Clerk of the Court, and the abstract “does not state that she is a deputy clerk, nor does it contain initials or other indicia to demonstrate that she is a deputy clerk.” Id. at 140. This cause of action is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 Va. Cir. 187, 1994 Va. Cir. LEXIS 8, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-beattie-vaccfairfax-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack