Larry Joe Dargan, Jr. v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Virginia

Larry Joe Dargan, Jr. v. Commonwealth

500 S.E.2d 228, 27 Va. App. 495, 1998 Va. App. LEXIS 321

CourtCourt of Appeals of Virginia

DecidedJune 9, 1998

Docket2239963

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 500 S.E.2d 228 (Larry Joe Dargan, Jr. 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

Larry Joe Dargan, Jr. v. Commonwealth, 500 S.E.2d 228, 27 Va. App. 495, 1998 Va. App. LEXIS 321 (Va. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinions

ELDER, Judge,

with whom ANNUNZIATA, J., joins, concurring.

I concur in the result but only because the sentence imposed by the jury pursuant to the erroneous instruction was the maximum term that would have been imposed under that instruction and the time set aside by the trial court resulted in [500]*500the maximum sentence allowable by law. Because the jury imposed the maximum sentence authorized by the erroneous instruction, the trial court could ascertain by “[c]ommon sense and reason” what sentence the jury would have imposed had it been properly instructed. Deagle v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 304, 306, 199 S.E.2d 509, 511 (1973). However, if the jury had imposed any sentence under the erroneous instruction other than the maximum, the court would have been forced to resort to speculation to determine what the jury’s sentence would have been. In such a case, I would remand for resentencing.

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

ELDER, Judge,

with whom ANNUNZIATA, J., joins, concurring.

I concur in the result but only because the sentence imposed by the jury pursuant to the erroneous instruction was the maximum term that would have been imposed under that instruction and the time set aside by the trial court resulted in [500]*500the maximum sentence allowable by law. Because the jury imposed the maximum sentence authorized by the erroneous instruction, the trial court could ascertain by “[c]ommon sense and reason” what sentence the jury would have imposed had it been properly instructed. Deagle v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 304, 306, 199 S.E.2d 509, 511 (1973). However, if the jury had imposed any sentence under the erroneous instruction other than the maximum, the court would have been forced to resort to speculation to determine what the jury’s sentence would have been. In such a case, I would remand for resentencing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

500 S.E.2d 228, 27 Va. App. 495, 1998 Va. App. LEXIS 321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larry-joe-dargan-jr-v-commonwealth-vactapp-1998.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack