Head v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Virginia

Head v. Commonwealth

441 S.E.2d 351, 18 Va. App. 50, 10 Va. Law Rep. 1061, 1994 Va. App. LEXIS 124

CourtCourt of Appeals of Virginia

DecidedMarch 15, 1994

DocketNo. 0419-92-3

StatusPublished

This text of 441 S.E.2d 351 (Head v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Head v. Commonwealth, 441 S.E.2d 351, 18 Va. App. 50, 10 Va. Law Rep. 1061, 1994 Va. App. LEXIS 124 (Va. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

[51]*51UPON A HEARING EN BANC

Opinion

PER CURIAM

This appeal is from the trial court’s denial of a motion to vacate an order declaring the appellant an habitual offender. The motion was filed approximately three years after the order was entered and was prompted by the appellant being charged for driving after being declared an habitual offender. The motion was premised on the failure of the trial court to appoint a guardian ad litem for the appellant, who was an alcoholic.

This case is governed by our recent decision in Pigg v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 756, 441 S.E.2d 216 (1994) (en banc), in which we held that an habitual offender adjudication rendered against a person under a disability for whom no guardian ad litem has been appointed is merely voidable. Here, as in Pigg, there was no showing that the offender was incapable of understanding the nature of the proceedings against him or of defending his interest. Appellant was present at the habitual offender adjudication, and the record contains no evidence that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time or incapable of understanding the nature of the proceedings against him for any other reason. The trial court had no authority to vacate the order, and the judgment appealed from should be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Moon, C.J., Baker, J., Barrow, J., Coleman, J., Koontz, J., Willis, J., Elder, J., Bray, J., and Fitzpatrick, J., concurred.

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

[51]*51UPON A HEARING EN BANC

Opinion

PER CURIAM

This appeal is from the trial court’s denial of a motion to vacate an order declaring the appellant an habitual offender. The motion was filed approximately three years after the order was entered and was prompted by the appellant being charged for driving after being declared an habitual offender. The motion was premised on the failure of the trial court to appoint a guardian ad litem for the appellant, who was an alcoholic.

This case is governed by our recent decision in Pigg v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 756, 441 S.E.2d 216 (1994) (en banc), in which we held that an habitual offender adjudication rendered against a person under a disability for whom no guardian ad litem has been appointed is merely voidable. Here, as in Pigg, there was no showing that the offender was incapable of understanding the nature of the proceedings against him or of defending his interest. Appellant was present at the habitual offender adjudication, and the record contains no evidence that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time or incapable of understanding the nature of the proceedings against him for any other reason. The trial court had no authority to vacate the order, and the judgment appealed from should be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Moon, C.J., Baker, J., Barrow, J., Coleman, J., Koontz, J., Willis, J., Elder, J., Bray, J., and Fitzpatrick, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

441 S.E.2d 351, 18 Va. App. 50, 10 Va. Law Rep. 1061, 1994 Va. App. LEXIS 124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/head-v-commonwealth-vactapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack