Waseem Ali ("Ali") appeals his convictions for grand larceny from the person, in violation of Code § 18.2-95, robbery, in violation of Code § 18.2-58, reckless driving, in violation of Code § 46.2-852, and driving on a revoked license, third or subsequent offense, in violation of Code § 46.2-301. On appeal, Ali contends for the first time that he could not lawfully be convicted of both robbery and grand larceny from the person because they arose from a single act.
Facts:
Waseem Ali ("Ali") appeals his convictions for grand larceny from the person, in violation of Code § 18.2-95, robbery, in violation of Code § 18.2-58, reckless driving, in violation of Code § 46.2-852, and driving on a revoked license, third or subsequent offense, in violation of Code § 46.2-301. On appeal, Ali contends for the first time that he could not lawfully be convicted of both robbery and grand larceny from the person because they arose from a single act. Ali further contends that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecutor to ask him certain questions during cross-examination in the sentencing phase of the trial, because the questions did not constitute proper impeachment or rebuttal, that the prosecutor referred to convictions that were not listed on the notice required by Code § 19.2-295.1, and that the prosecutor referred to convictions that were not evidenced by a certified court order, as required by Code § 19.2-295.1.
Issues:
Whether the defendant could be convicted of both robbery and grand larceny from the person because they arose from a single act?
Whether the trail court erred in permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine defendant about his prior conviction?
Discussion:
This court declined to invoke the "ends of justice" exception to Va. Sup. Ct. R. 5A:18 to consider defendant's argument because defendant could not demonstrate that the conduct for which he was convicted was not a criminal offense. Defendant's conduct arguably constituted two criminal offenses. Defendant could not affirmatively prove that an element of the offense did not occur because it was unclear from the record whether the evidence adduced at trial established two distinct criminal acts or one. Thus, this court declines to invoke the "ends of justice" exception to Rule 5A:18 to consider Ali's argument.
This court held that the trial court did not err in permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine defendant about his prior conviction for possession of cocaine. Because defendant introduced evidence concerning his history and background, the prosecutor was entitled to cross-examine him about specific acts in order to rebut his testimony pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-295.1.
Conclusion:
This court hence affirmed the judgment which convicted the defendant of grand larceny from the person in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-95, robbery in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-58, reckless driving in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-852, and driving on a revoked license, third or subsequent offense, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-301.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content
Virginia Mediation Settlement Agreement Lawyers Attorneys
The parties were married on October 13, 1995, and that they separated on or about February 27, 1997. The parties entered into a mediation settlement agreement on January 14, 1998, and upon due notice to wife, depositions were taken of husband and his corroborating witness on April 16, 1998. Plaintiff wife filed for divorce from defendant husband.
Virginia Mediation Separation Marital Dissolution Lawyers Attorneys
Husband, an active member of the United States Navy, executed, after separation from his wife, a survivor's benefit plan election certificate, providing a deferred annuity for wife and children. The husband had three options, no participation for the wife, an immediate annuity, or a deferred annuity.
New York Divorce Jurisdiction Equitable Distribution Spousal Support Lawyers Attorneys
The parties were married in Ecuador in 1963. They have six emancipated children. Neither of the parties speaks or reads English with any degree of facility. Throughout their marriage, plaintiff-husband supported his wife and children. He works as a building porter, and his gross weekly salary as of December 1995 was $ 538.74. Plaintiff is also a member of a union that provided him with an attorney in this divorce proceeding.
