This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case CONRAD BURKE v. STANLEY YOUNG, ET AL. (Record Number 200095) From The Circuit court of Tazewell County; R. Patterson, Judge. Counsel Conrad Burke, pro se, for appellant. Ann-Marie Catherine White (Office of the Attorney General) for appellees. Assignments of Error 1. The circuit court erred in holding that there are and were no genuine facts in dispute when there clearly is a genuine dispute of facts for a jury to decide the outcome of this matter yet this Honorable Court of Tazewell County granted the defendant summary judgment in this case which was in direct conflict with procedures and relevant law of the Virginia state judicial system. 2. The circuit court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing to review camera footage which would have further bolstered the appellant’s claims and furthering the fact to which the evidence would show that the defendants are not and were not eligible for summary judgment due to the improperly applied restraints causing the appellant further suffering due to the fact that Burke was not able to drink water, eat or to be able to relieve himself, unassisted for a long period of time with NO breaks to do so. 3. The circuit court erred by not considering evidence and medical records to which material facts arose due to numbness in feet and hands from the improperly placed restraints and no foot coverings on a cold concrete floor for an excessive amount of time. The court also erred due to the fact that Burke was stripped naked with only his underwear in a very cold cell for an excessive amount of time. This information was put in an affidavit to the trial court which did in fact give more genuine facts in this case for a jury to decide. 6. The circuit court erred by granting summary judgment stating, “the restraints were properly applied and the situation warranted the use of force.” This information was for a jury to decide and not for the Honorable Judge to decide as per Virginia Code and relative law governing such issues. 8. The circuit court erred by making a ruling on the evidence in which was not part of his duties as this is the duty of the jury. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/200095.pdf

Oral Arguments of the Supreme Court of Virginia

2020 November Burke v. Young

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case ROBERT JOHN DODD v. HAROLD CLARKE, DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (Record Number 200091) From Circuit Court of Chesterfield County; F.G. Rockwell, III, Judge. Counsel Johnathan P. Sheldon (Sheldon & Flood, P.L.C.) for appellant. Rosemary V. Bourne (Office of the Attorney General) for appellee. Assignment of Error The circuit court erred when it denied Dodd’s claim that his Double Jeopardy and Due Process rights under Art. I, §§ 8 & 11 of the Virginia Constitution and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution were violated when he was tried and convicted on indictments that were identical. The circuit court erred when it denied Dodd’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective under the Virginia Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution for failing to object to the Double Jeopardy and Due Process violations. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/200091.pdf

2020 November Dodd v. Clarke

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case AARON LOUIS GOLDBERG v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA (Record Number 191701) From The Court of Appeals of Virginia. Counsel Roger Alan Whitus (Office of the Public Defender) for appellant. Kelsey M. Bulger (Office of the Attorney General) for appellee. Assignment of Error I. The Court of Appeals erred by finding that any error in denying appellant’s motion in limine and admitting horizontal gaze nystagmus ("HGN") evidence was harmless. II. The Court of Appeals erred by failing to rule on whether the evidence of HGN testing was scientific, supported by sufficient foundational evidence of reliability, and was unfairly prejudicial in violation of appellant’s constitutional rights and the Virginia Rules of Evidence. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191701.pdf

2020 November Goldberg v. Commonwealth

Granted Appeal Summary Case PALMYRA ASSOCIATES, LLC, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF HIGHWAYS (Record Number 191680) From The Circuit Court of Fluvanna County; R.D. Taylor, Jr., Judge. Counsel Joseph E. Blackburn (Blackburn, Conte, Schilling & Click, P.C.) for appellants. Francis A. Cherry, Jr., and F. Adam Cherry, III (Randolph, Boyd, Cherry and Vaughan) for appellee. Assignments of Error 1. The trial court erred as a matter of case law in striking David Sutton’s testimony as to his opinion of damages to the residue. 2. The trial court erred as a matter of case law in refusing to admit into evidence site plans Landowner had prepared over 10 years prior to the take showing the development potential of their property and overlays showing the impact of the imposition of the fourth leg of the roundabout on the development potential of their property. These plans are Refused Exhibits A, B & C. 3. The trial court erred in putting the parties on terms of either the court confirming the value of the take or ordering a new trial. 4. The trial court erred as a matter of case law in finding that Mr. Sutton’s testimony had anything to do with damaging the property on a “per lot” basis. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191680.pdf

2020 November Palmyra v. Commissioner of Highways

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case DWAYNE RAMON SMITH v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL. (Record Number 191559) From The Circuit Court of Chesterfield County; D. Johnson, Judge. Counsel Henry W. McLaughlin (The Law Office of Henry McLaughlin, P.C.) for appellant. Robert W. Loftin (McGuireWoods LLP) for appellee. Assignment of Error 1. The Circuit Court of Chesterfield County, Virginia (“the trial court”) erred in the trial court’s written rulings on July 3, 2019 sustaining a plea in bar by appellee Bank of America, N.A. (“Bank of America”) and a plea in bar by appellee Equity Trustees, LLC (“Equity Trustees”). This was error because, when those pleas in bar came on for an evidentiary hearing before the trial court on June 13, 2019, after counsel had presented oral argument on a motion craving oyer and demurrers, although the appellant, Dwayne Smith (“Smith”) was present to present evidence in opposition to the plea in bar, on the basis of a proposal by counsel for Bank of America, agreed to by all counsel of record, the evidentiary hearing that had been scheduled for June 13, 2019 on the pleas in bar was not held, rather the trial court stated “Then we’ll just take the plea in bar completely under advisement. I’ll take the motion to crave oyer and the demurrer, with respect to the demurrer, today, under advisement. And I will respond to you within a week on the motion to crave oyer and the two demurrers. And then we’ll set the plea and bar or not depending on how the Court rules.” This amounted to a continuance of the evidentiary hearing set for June 13, 2019 on the pleas in bar. As a result, the case was not ready for decision on the pleas in bar and Smith was deprived of his due process opportunity to present evidence in opposition to the pleas in bar when the trial court, on July 3, 2019 issued written rulings sustaining the pleas in bar. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191559.pdf

2020 November Smith v. Bank of America

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case C. ROBERT JOHNSON, III, ET AL. v. CITY OF SUFFOLK, ET AL. (Record Number 191563) From The Circuit Court for the City of Suffolk; L. Farmer, Judge. Counsel L. Steven Emmert (Sykes, Bourdon, Ahern & Levy, P.C.), Joseph T. Waldo and Russell G. Terman (Waldo & Lyle, P.C.) for appellants. David L. Arnold, D. Rossen S. Greene, and Matthew R. Hull (Pender & Coward, P.C.), and Christopher D. Pomeroy and Paul T. Nyffeler (AquaLaw PLC) for appellees. Assignment of Error The trial court erroneously sustained the demurrers, because the declaratory-judgment petition states a facially valid claim for inverse condemnation, and: A. The trial court erroneously based its ruling on federal caselaw interpreting the United States Constitution, because the oystermen’s claims are based on the Constitution of Virginia. B. The trial court erroneously ruled that the City and HRSD have the right to pollute the Commonwealth’s waters and that they need not pay just compensation to the oystermen. In doing so, it erroneously relied on now-obsolete caselaw and erroneously applied that caselaw. Assignments of Cross-Error (City of Suffolk) 1. The trial court erred in overruling the demurrers on the ground that an inverse condemnation case will not lie against the City because the City lacks the authority to exercise eminent domain over the oyster ground leases in this case. 2. The trial court erred in failing to consider the argument in the City’s demurrer that the Petition should have been dismissed because the Appellants failed to allege a public use and failed to allege facts sufficient to show that their property was taken or damaged for a public use. 3. The trial court erred in failing to consider the argument in the City’s demurrer that the Petition should have been dismissed because oyster ground leases do not guarantee lessees water of a certain purity or pollution level. 4. The trial court erred in failing to consider the argument raised in the City’s demurrer that the Petition should be dismissed because whatever taking or damage the Appellants did allege was due to the state’s exercise of its police power. 5. The trial court erred in failing to consider the argument raised in the City’s plea in bar that the Petition should be dismissed as time-barred because the claims are premised on conditions which have existed continuously since before the three-year statute of limitations. Assignment of Cross-Error (Hampton Roads Sanitation District) 1. The Circuit Court erred in denying in part HRSD’s demurrer by finding that HRSD has condemnation authority over Petitioners’ alleged oyster planting ground leases despite Virginia Code § 28.2-628, which removed its condemnation authority over grounds leased by the Commonwealth to third parties pursuant to Virginia Code §§ 28.2-600 et seq http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191563.pdf

2020 November Johnson v. City of Suffolk

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case DEBORAH C. GRAVES v. SAMANTHA SHOEMAKER (Record Number 191500) From The Circuit Court of Albemarle County; M. Hughes, Jr., Judge. Counsel Fletcher W. Harkrader (Marks & Harrison, P.C.) for appellant. John P. Cattano and Christopher L. Smith (Central Virginia Litigation, PLC) for appellee. Assignment of Error The trial court committed reversible error, improperly applied settled law as set forth in Lombard v. Rohrbaugh, 262 Va. 484 (2001), and abused its discretion in refusing to allow Plaintiff to cross-examine Defendant’s medical expert witness concerning bias or potential bias in favor of the defense based on his extensive, substantial, and ongoing financial connection to Defendant’s insurer; Plaintiff was entitled to elicit such testimony at trial concerning the expert’s substantial connection to the insurer as relevant to the expert’s bias or prejudice in this case. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191500.pdf

2020 November Graves v. Shoemaker

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert   www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case CARLA G. COLEMAN v. WESTWOOD BUILDINGS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (Record Number 191475) From The Circuit Court of Fairfax County; D. Bernhard, Judge. Counsel Kevin E. Smith (Law Office of Kevin E. Smith) for appellant. Mathew D. Ravencraft and Louise T. Gitcheva (Rees Broome, PC) for appellee. Assignments of Error 1. The lower court erred in failing to clearly identify what transfers violated the fraudulent conveyance statute and what transfers violated the voluntary conveyance statute and awarding identical in personam judgments in the amount of $380,864.91 for each yet finding them jointly and severally liable for a total global sum of $478,220.69. 2. The lower court erred in holding Appellant liable for Appellee’s conversion claim against Mr. Grayson individually when it subsequently included it in the total global sum that could be collected. 3. The lower court erred as a matter of law in awarding attorney’s fees and sanctions in a case that is not a fraud case, where the court found there is no “pattern of misconduct” of “callous, deliberate, deceitful acts,” and where the plaintiff had not elected to proceed exclusively in equity, all in violation of this Court’s recent holding in MCR Federal, LLC v. JB&A, Inc., 294 Va. 446 (2017), as well as being contrary to the plain meaning of Va. Code § 55¬82.1, especially where a claim for such sanctions were never pled, briefed, noticed for a hearing, or timely requested. 4. The trial court erred in finding Appellant liable as a participant as a transferee in violation of the plain meaning of those terms as laid out in La Bella Dona Skin Care, Inc. v. Belle Femme Enterprises, LLC when she never personally received any of the fraudulent transfers or had signatory authority and/or ownership interest on any of the bank accounts where such transfers were deposited as well as for deposits of negotiable instruments made out to G&K, K&A, and  GLC she was required to make as part of her job regarding payments received by G&K, K&A, GLC and Grayson.

2020 November Coleman v. Westwood Buildings

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert   www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case ANN M. WILBURN, ET AL. v. ANTHONY JOHN MANGANO (Record Number 191443) From The Circuit Court of Northumberland County; R.M. McKenney, Judge. Counsel Breckenridge Ingles (Martin, Ingles & Hensley, Ltd.) for appellants. Richard H. Stuart for appellee. Assignment of Error The trial court erroneously sustained a demurrer to an action for specific performance of a land contract on the basis that there was no meeting of the minds as to price where the contract expressly stated that the purchaser would pay “the fair market value at the time of [vendor’s] death.” http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191443.pdf

2020 November Wilburn v. Mangano

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case ALAN M. GRAYSON, ET AL. v. WESTWOOD BUILDINGS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (Record Number 191413) From The Circuit Court of Fairfax County; D. Bernhard, Judge. Counsel Bernard J. DiMuro and Michael Lieberman (DiMuro Ginsberg, PC) for appellants. Mathew D. Ravencraft and Louise T. Gitcheva (Rees Broome, PC) for appellee. Assignments of Error 1. The lower court erred as a matter of law in entering in personam judgments for “fraudulent conveyances,” “voluntary conveyances” and conversion in favor of an unsecured creditor: (a) against a senior, secured creditor with a perfected security interest who was recovering on a debt, (b) against several non-transferees who cannot be liable for conveyances they never received, and (c) against Petitioners without determining the transferors’ fraudulent intent or insolvency, all in violation of this Court’s then-recent holding in La Bella Dona Skin Care v. Belle Femme, 294 Va. 243 (2017), or otherwise contrary to the plain meaning of Va. Code §§ 55-80 & 55-81; and (d) in this context, further erred in ruling that the ‘Buy-Out Agreement’ preceding the debt lacked consideration, or that any such lack of consideration could nullify the later extension of credit or the resulting senior secured, perfected creditor status. 2. The lower court erred as a matter of law in entering a “conversion” judgment against Grayson because he was a client of a commercial transaction attorney (actually, a shareholder of that client), when that attorney simply collected on a senior, secured debt pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code [see, e.g., Va. Code § 8.9A-205(a)] and the Executions section of Virginia Civil Remedies and Procedures (with the lower court wrongly concluding that boilerplate fieri facias language in a garnishment directed to someone else somehow compelled that attorney to refrain from such collection, and wrongly applying the tort of conversion to money to which the landlord had no exclusive and immediate right). 3. The lower court erred as a matter of law in failing to dismiss all claims against all Petitioners under res judicata, when such claims could have been brought in prior litigation regarding the same conduct, transactions and occurrences (and were actually known to the plaintiff during prior litigation), and when the prior parties were in privity to all Petitioners, in violation of this Court’s recent holding in Funny Guy, LLC v. Lecego, LLC, 293 Va. 135 (2017) and contrary to Virginia Supreme Court Rule 1:6. 4. The lower court erred as a matter of law in entering judgment against all Petitioners for fraudulent conveyances and voluntary conveyances without requiring proof by “clear, cogent and convincing evidence” from the landlord, and by shifting the burden of proof onto the defendants, in violation of this Court’s holding in Suntrust Bank v. PS Business Parks, L.P., 292 Va. 644 (2016). 5. The lower court erred as a matter of law in improperly calculating damages by: (a) awarding damages for injury that did not exist at the time of the transfers; (b) refusing to make the necessary “ratable distribution” between creditors (the landlord and Grayson/GSA); (c) refusing to honor the right under Virginia law for debtors K&A and AMG to prefer one creditor over another; (d) assessing liability for the “IDT transfers” on parties against whom the IDT transfers were not pled; and (e) awarding damages for time-barred transfers. 6. The lower court erred as a matter of law in awarding attorney’s fees and sanctions in a nonfraud case, where there is no “pattern of misconduct” of “callous, deliberate, deceitful acts,” and where the plaintiff had not elected to proceed exclusively in equity, all in violation of this Court’s recent holding in MCR Federal, LLC v. JB&A, Inc., 294 Va. 446 (2017), and contrary to the plain meaning of Va. Code § 55-82.1, especially where a claim for such sanctions was never pled, briefed, noticed for a hearing, or timely requested. 7. The lower court erred as a matter of law in awarding attorney’s fees against all of the Petitioners for all of the claims asserted, including claims that were dismissed, claims for which attorney’s fees are not recoverable, claims against defendants who were found not liable, claims brought only against some defendants and not others, damages that were denied, and one claim for which the landlord specifically refrained from requesting attorney’s fees during trial. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191413.pdf Granted Appeal Summary Case VICTOR KUBLI, ET AL. v. WESTWOOD BUILDINGS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (Record Number 191414) From The Circuit Court of Fairfax County; D. Bernhard, Judge. Counsel Bernard J. DiMuro and Michael Lieberman (DiMuro Ginsberg, PC) for appellants. Mathew D. Ravencraft and Louise T. Gitcheva (Rees Broome, PC) for appellee. Assignments of Error 1. The lower court erred as a matter of law in entering in personam judgments for “fraudulent conveyances,” “voluntary conveyances” and conversion in favor of an unsecured creditor: (a) against a senior, secured creditor with a perfected security interest who was recovering on a debt, (b) against several non-transferees who cannot be liable for conveyances that they never received, and (c) against Petitioners without determining the transferors’ fraudulent intent or insolvency, all in violation of this Court’s then-recent holding in La Bella Dona Skin Care v. Belle Femme, 294 Va. 243 (2017), or otherwise contrary to the plain meaning of Va. Code §§ 55-80 & 55-81; and (d) in this context, further erred in ruling that the ‘Buy-Out Agreement’ preceding the debt lacked consideration, or that any such lack of consideration could nullify the later extension of credit or the resulting senior secured, perfected creditor status. 2. [RESERVED – The second Grayson assignment of error applies only to Grayson (Record No. 191413), because that assignment refers to the conversion claim, which was pled only against Grayson. We reserve this in order to maintain the same numbering of assignments.] 3. The lower court erred as a matter of law in failing to dismiss all claims against all Petitioners under res judicata, when such claims could have been brought in prior litigation regarding the same conduct, transactions and occurrences (and were actually known to the plaintiff during prior litigation), and when the prior parties were in privity to all Petitioners, in violation of this Court’s recent holding in Funny Guy, LLC v. Lecego, LLC, 293 Va. 135 (2017) and contrary to Virginia Supreme Court Rule 1:6. 4. The lower court erred as a matter of law in entering judgment against all Petitioners for fraudulent conveyances and voluntary conveyances without requiring proof by “clear, cogent and convincing evidence” from the landlord, and by shifting the burden of proof onto the defendants, in violation of this Court’s then-recent holding in Suntrust Bank v. PS Business Parks, L.P., 292 Va. 644 (2016). 5. The lower court erred as a matter of law in improperly calculating damages by: (a) awarding damages for injury that did not exist at the time of the transfers; (b) refusing to make the necessary “ratable distribution” between creditors (the landlord and Grayson/GSA); (c) refusing to honor the right under Virginia law for debtors K&A and AMG to prefer one creditor over another; (d) assessing liability for the “IDT transfers” on parties against whom the IDT transfers were not pled; and (e) awarding damages for time-barred transfers. 6. The lower court erred as a matter of law in awarding attorney’s fees and sanctions in a nonfraud case, where there is no “pattern of misconduct” of “callous, deliberate, deceitful acts,” and where the plaintiff had not elected to proceed exclusively in equity, as this Court has required in its decisions, and contrary to the plain meaning of Va. Code § 55-82.1, especially where a claim for such sanctions was never pled, briefed, noticed for a hearing, or timely requested. 7. The lower court erred as a matter of law in awarding attorney’s fees against all of the Petitioners for all of the claims asserted, including claims that were dismissed, claims for which attorney’s fees are not recoverable, claims against defendants who were found not liable, claims brought only against some defendants and not others, damages that were denied, and one claim for which the landlord specifically refrained from requesting attorney’s fees during trial. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191414.pdf

2020 November Grayson v. Westwood Buildings | Kubli v. Westwood Buildings

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert   www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com Granted Appeal Summary Case JESSICA SHOEMAKER, ADMINISTRATOR AND PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF GINA ANGELA SHOEMAKER v. RICHARD E. FUNKHOUSER, ET AL. (Record Number 191218) From The Circuit Court of Shenandoah County; C. Athey, Judge. Counsel Bradley G. Pollack, Esq., for appellant. Randall T. Perdue and Joseph Ross Newell, III (TimberlakeSmith) for appellees. Assignment of Error 1. The trial court erred in sustaining Funkhousers’ joint demurrer to the second amended complaint. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191218.pdf

2020 November Shoemaker v. Funkhouser

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert   www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case MARY CARROLL GRIFFITH PLATT, ET AL. v. MARY CATHERINE MILES GRIFFITH, ET AL. (Record Number 190817) From The Circuit Court of Henrico County; J. Marshall, Judge. Counsel Daniel A. Carrell (Carrell Blanton Ferris & Associates, PLC) and Robert Coleman Smith (Robert C. Smith, PLC) for appellants. W. Benjamin Pace and Joseph R. Pope (Williams Mullen) and Hugh T. Antrim (ThompsonMcMullan, P.C.) for appellees. Assignment of Error The circuit court erred as a matter of law by ordering that plaintiffs, qualified beneficiaries under their father’s will, lacked standing to sue other beneficiaries who had induced the testator to make inter vivos transfers to them when he lacked capacity and was subjected to undue influence. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/190817.pdf

2020 November Platt v. Griffith

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case SGT KANG’S GROUP, LLC v. BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA (Record Number 191423) From The Circuit Court of Prince William County; K. Irving, Judge. Counsel Chapman Petersen, David L. Amos (Chap Petersen & Associates, P.L.C.), Henry E. Howell, III, and Benjamin L. Perdue (The Eminent Domain Litigation Group, P.L.C.) for appellant. Michelle R. Robl, Alan F. Smith, and Nathan C. Welch (Prince William County Attorney’s Office) for appellee. Assignments of Error The Trial Court erred in holding the recordation of a certain plat operated to grant an “ingress-egress” easement to the County. The Trial Court erred in not applying the doctrine of judicial estoppel to prevent the County from asserting an inconsistent position in its Motion in Limine. The Trial Court erred in ruling that Kang was not entitled to put on “any and all evidence” of activities in the “ingress-egress” easement area. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191423.pdf

September 2020 SGT Kangs Group v. Board of County Supervisors

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case HOWARD ALLEN GROFFEL v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA (Record Number 191360) From The Court of Appeals of Virginia. Counsel Ivan D. Fehrenbach (D.R. Dansby, Ltd.) for appellee. Mark R. Herring, Virginia B. Theisen (Office of the Attorney General) for appellant. Assignment of Error The Court of Appeals erred when it failed to overturn four of Groffel’s five convictions for violating 18.2-308.1:4 for one act while subject to five protective orders. Such convictions violated Groffel’s Fifth Amendment right to avoid multiple punishments for the same offense. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191360.pdf

September 2020 Groffel v. Commonwealth

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA v. HOWARD ALLEN GROFFEL (Record Number 191233) From The Court of Appeals of Virginia. Counsel Mark R. Herring, Virginia B. Theisen (Office of the Attorney General) for appellant. Ivan D. Fehrenbach (D.R. Dansby, Ltd.) for appellee. Assignment of Error In this case of first impression, the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that convictions for possession of a firearm by a felon and possession by a felon of ammunition incompatible with the firearms with which it was possessed violated the double jeopardy protection against multiple punishments for the same offense. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191233.pdf

September 2020 Commonwealth v. Groffel

Public domain audio of oral arguments from the Supreme Court of Virginia. Whether you're a lawyer, law student, or just an interested citizen, this podcast is a great way to learn how the Supreme Court of Virginia operates and what's expected of each side in a case. Not affiliated with the Supreme Court of VA. Created by entrepreneurs.

hubhopper

Oral Arguments of the Supreme Court of Virginia

hubhopper