Summary
In Jacobs, the original appellate counsel's actions initially prevented the petitioner from receiving any ruling on the merits of his petition for appeal before the Court of Appeals of Virginia. Jacobs, 2002 Va. App. LEXIS 589, at * 1-3.
Summary of this case from Tully v. JohnsonOpinion
Record No. 0874-02-4. Circuit Court Nos. CR01-1874 through CR01-1876.
October 8, 2002.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Arlington County.
This petition for appeal has been reviewed pursuant to Code § 17.1-407(C).
Appellant was convicted following a jury trial of three counts of embezzlement.
The petition for appeal filed in this case fails to comply with Rules 5A:12(c), 5A:20(b), 5A:20(c), 5A:20(d) and 5A:20(e) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia. Specifically, the petition fails to "provide a brief statement of the nature of the case and of the material proceedings in the trial court" as required by Rules 5A:12(c) and 5A:20(b). In addition, the statement of the questions presented fails to provide "a clear and exact reference to the page(s) of the transcript, written statement, record, or appendix where each question was preserved in the trial court" in violation of Rules 5A:12(c) and 5A:20(c). The petition also summarizes the evidence presented in a three-day jury trial in three sentences, stretching over ten typewritten lines and, thus, fails to "provide a clear and concise statement of the facts that relate to the questions presented, with references to the pages of the transcript, written statement, record, or appendix" as required by Rules 5A:12(c) and 5A:20(d).
Further, the issue presented by counsel for appellant in his petition is "As long as a jury buys it, is a Commonwealth's case built of smoke and mirrors sufficient for conviction." Aside from failing to state a legal issue upon which appellate relief can be granted, such sarcasm is unprofessional and has no place in an appellate pleading. We also note that counsel follows up this sarcastic interrogatory with ten lines of argument in which he avers that under "well settled law" the evidence is insufficient for conviction; yet, counsel provides not a single case citation in support of this position, in apparent violation of Rules 5A:12(c) and Rule 5A:20(e) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, as well as either Rule 1.3(a) or Rule 3.3(a)(3) of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct.
Accordingly, we deny this petition and counsel for the appellant is hereby admonished for the reasons stated above. Additionally, as counsel for the appellant is court-appointed, it is directed that no attorney's fees be allowed and that he be removed from the list of attorneys approved for appointment by this Court.
This order is final for purposes of appeal unless, within fourteen days from the date of this order, there are further proceedings pursuant to Code § 17.1-407(D) and Rule 5A:15(a). If appellant files a demand for consideration by a three-judge panel, the demand should include a statement, not to exceed one typewritten page, identifying how this order is in error.
The Court's records reflect that Robert W. Gookin, Esquire, is counsel of record in this matter.
This order shall be published.