Michael Ray Short v. Commonwealth of Virginia
This text of Michael Ray Short v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Michael Ray Short v. Commonwealth of Virginia) 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.
Opinion
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Bray and Bumgardner Argued at Salem, Virginia
MICHAEL RAY SHORT MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 2274-98-3 JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III OCTOBER 26, 1999 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY William N. Alexander, II, Judge
Jesse W. Meadows, III, for appellant.
Donald E. Jeffrey, III, Assistant Attorney General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Michael Ray Short was indicted for statutory burglary and
three charges of grand larceny. Pursuant to a plea agreement,
he pled guilty to one charge of grand larceny of a truck, and
the trial court nolle prossed the remaining charges. On appeal,
the defendant argues that the trial court improperly ordered him
to pay restitution for crimes for which he was not tried or
convicted. Because the sentencing order did not order
restitution to anyone other than the owner of the stolen truck,
we dismiss this appeal.
The defendant and a codefendant broke into an auto repair
shop. They took a truck belonging to Brian Crews and two
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code § 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication. toolboxes full of tools belonging to the shop owner, William
Andrews, and an employee, James Hubbard.
The defendant argues the trial court erred in ordering him
to pay restitution to Andrews and Hubbard for the stolen tools.
However, the order from which the defendant appeals does not
support his contention. The order only provides restitution to
Brian Crews, the owner of the truck stolen by the defendant. It
contains no direction to pay restitution to either Andrews or
Hubbard. A court speaks only through its orders, see Jones v.
Commonwealth, 24 Va. App. 636, 649, 484 S.E.2d 618, 620 (1997),
and the issues raised on this appeal are not reflected in the
order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
Dismissed.
- 2 -
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Michael Ray Short v. Commonwealth of Virginia, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-ray-short-v-commonwealth-of-virginia-vactapp-1999.