Travis Wade Spence v. Commonwealth of Virginia

CourtCourt of Appeals of Virginia
DecidedApril 3, 2012
Docket1492103
StatusUnpublished

This text of Travis Wade Spence v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Travis Wade Spence 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.

Bluebook
Travis Wade Spence v. Commonwealth of Virginia, (Va. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Alston, Huff and Senior Judge Coleman Argued at Salem, Virginia

TRAVIS WADE SPENCE MEMORANDUM OPINION ∗ BY v. Record No. 1492-10-3 JUDGE SAM W. COLEMAN III APRIL 3, 2012 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BUCHANAN COUNTY Patrick R. Johnson, Judge

Helen E. Phillips (Charles H. Slemp, III; McGlothlin & Phillips, PLLC; Slemp Law Office, PLLC, on brief), for appellant.

Donald E. Jeffrey, III, Senior Assistant Attorney General (Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Travis Wade Spence (appellant) appeals his convictions of first-degree murder and

obstruction of justice. On appeal, appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to

set aside the verdict because trial counsel did not render him effective assistance. However, claims

raising ineffective assistance of counsel are not cognizable on direct appeal.1 See Blevins v.

Commonwealth, 267 Va. 291, 296, 590 S.E.2d 365, 368 (2004). “Claims of ineffective assistance

of counsel may no longer be raised on direct appeal. Code § 19.2-317.1, which had allowed direct

appeal of such claims under certain circumstances, was repealed in 1990. 1990 Va. Acts, c. 74.”

Browning v. Commonwealth, 19 Va. App. 295, 297 n.2, 452 S.E.2d 360, 362 n.2 (1994).

∗ Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 1 Claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel may be raised for the first time in a state habeas corpus proceeding without violating Virginia law that non-jurisdictional issues that could have been raised at trial and on direct appeal are not cognizable in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Walker v. Mitchell, 224 Va. 568, 571, 299 S.E.2d 698, 699 (1983). Accordingly, we do not address the merits of appellant’s argument, and appellant’s convictions are

affirmed.

-2-

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

Related

Blevins v. Commonwealth
590 S.E.2d 365 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 2004)
Walker v. Mitchell
299 S.E.2d 698 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1983)
Browning v. Commonwealth
452 S.E.2d 360 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Travis Wade Spence v. Commonwealth of Virginia, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/travis-wade-spence-v-commonwealth-of-virginia-vactapp-2012.