Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneyappealtrialwillobjection

attorneyappealtrialwillobjectionappellant

Related Cases

Brown v. Commonwealth, 8 Va.App. 126, 380 S.E.2d 8

Facts

Wayne T. Brown was convicted of statutory burglary for breaking into Mrs. Elizabeth C. Hayes' townhouse on February 22, 1987. At sentencing, the trial judge mistakenly sentenced him for a different burglary described in the presentence report, which was not the crime for which he was convicted. This error went unchallenged by Brown or his attorney at the time of sentencing.

The crux of the sentencing error is that Wayne T. Brown was convicted for one burglary but was sentenced for another burglary without Brown or his attorney voicing any objection at the time of sentencing.

Issue

Whether the Court of Appeals could consider a sentencing error for which no contemporaneous objection was made, under the 'ends of justice' exception.

This appeal addresses the limitation upon the Court of Appeals to consider a trial court error for which no contemporaneous objection was made.

Rule

Rule 5A:18 states that no ruling of a trial court will be considered as a basis for reversal unless the objection and grounds were stated at the time, except for good cause shown or to enable the court to attain the ends of justice.

Rule 5A:18 directs that no ruling of a trial court will be considered as a basis for reversal unless the objection and grounds were stated at the time, except for good cause shown or to enable the court to attain the ends of justice.

Analysis

The court determined that the error of sentencing Brown for a crime other than that for which he was convicted was clear, material, and substantial. The court emphasized that a convicted criminal has the right to be sentenced based on the facts and circumstances of the crime committed, and that the misdescription of the offense in the presentence report had a significant impact on the sentencing outcome.

In our judgment, prejudice or manifest injustice results when a person is sentenced for a crime other than that for which he was convicted.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals vacated Brown's sentence and remanded the case for resentencing, finding that a miscarriage of justice occurred due to the sentencing error.

Accordingly, we hold that a miscarriage of justice occurred when the trial court sentenced the appellant for a crime other than that for which he had been convicted.

Who won?

Wayne T. Brown prevailed in the case because the court recognized the significant error in sentencing him for a different burglary than the one for which he was convicted.

The Commonwealth, acknowledging at oral argument that the crime described in the offense section of the presentence report was erroneous, argues that since appellant was sentenced with the permissible range of punishment for statutory burglary, the crime for which he was convicted, no prejudice resulted.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Carter v. State, 366 Md. 574, 785 A.2d 348

Cardin v. State, 73 Md.App. 200, 533 A.2d 928

United States v. Castleman, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2017 WL 1234145

United States v. Hilliard, 851 F.3d 768, 102 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1277

Clark v. People, 232 P.3d 1287