From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

HITE v. COMMONWEALTH

Court of Appeals of Virginia. Norfolk
Oct 15, 1996
Record No. 2268-95-1 (Va. Ct. App. Oct. 15, 1996)

Summary

In Hite v. Commonwealth, 20 S.W. 217, 14 Ky. Law Rep. 308, it was held that the occasional absence from the court room of the accused on account of temporary illness for a few minutes at a time, the trial continuing in his absence, did not so prejudice his substantial rights as to compel a reversal of the judgment of conviction.

Summary of this case from Boreing v. Beard

Opinion

Record No. 2268-95-1

October 15, 1996

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of Williamsburg and County of James City, Russell M. Carneal, Judge Designate.

Jon M. Babineau for appellant.

John K. Byrum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Present: Judges Willis, Bray and Overton.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.


Richard Dwight Hite, a juvenile, appeals his convictions of robbery and use of a firearm in the commission of a robbery. Hite takes issue primarily with the transfer procedure from the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court to the Circuit Court.

Hite argues that the circuit court judge did not review the documents sent up from the lower court to ensure that they were properly completed. As support for his argument, he offers a typographical error on one transfer order. This contention has no merit. The record contains no evidence that the judge did not review the documents. We cannot reach that conclusion upon the bare assertion by the defendant. Furthermore, Code § 16.1-269.6(B)(i) only requires the judge to examine the transfer documents if either the juvenile or the Commonwealth appeals the transfer. Neither occurred in this case.

Hite next argues that the typographical error itself and the failure of the circuit court to advise the Commonwealth to seek indictments prohibited the circuit court from assuming jurisdiction. These objections were not raised before the arraignment, however, and are waived. Code § 16.1-169.6(E).

We find no reversible error present in the trial at the circuit court, and we therefore affirm the convictions.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

HITE v. COMMONWEALTH

Court of Appeals of Virginia. Norfolk
Oct 15, 1996
Record No. 2268-95-1 (Va. Ct. App. Oct. 15, 1996)

In Hite v. Commonwealth, 20 S.W. 217, 14 Ky. Law Rep. 308, it was held that the occasional absence from the court room of the accused on account of temporary illness for a few minutes at a time, the trial continuing in his absence, did not so prejudice his substantial rights as to compel a reversal of the judgment of conviction.

Summary of this case from Boreing v. Beard
Case details for

HITE v. COMMONWEALTH

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD DWIGHT HITE, JR. v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

Court:Court of Appeals of Virginia. Norfolk

Date published: Oct 15, 1996

Citations

Record No. 2268-95-1 (Va. Ct. App. Oct. 15, 1996)

Citing Cases

Howard v. Kentucky

s of the Crown, 33; 3 Bacon's Abridgement, 512; Magna Charta, ch. 29; Brannon's Fourteenth Amendment, 271;…

Thompson v. Commonwealth

The reasons for and against the application of the "irresistible impulse" as excuse for crime, are found in…