Anderson v. Commonwealth

Full title: JAMES PATTON ANDERSON v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia. Norfolk

Date published: Oct 19, 1993

Record No. 1134-92-1 (Va. Ct. App. Oct. 19, 1993)

Opinion

Record No. 1134-92-1

October 19, 1993

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH ALAN E. ROSENBLATT, JUDGE.

Cal Thompson Bain (Office of the Public Defender, on brief), for appellant.

(Stephen D. Rosenthal, Attorney General; Robert B. Condon, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judges Baker and Bray.

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia.

MEMORANDUM OPINION^_

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

JUDGE RICHARD S. BRAY.

Upon pleas of guilty and pursuant to a plea agreement accepted by the trial judge, James Patton Anderson (defendant) was convicted by the trial court on two counts of forcible sodomy. In accordance with the agreement, a presentence report was ordered, but, before sentencing, defendant moved to withdraw the earlier pleas. In overruling the motion, defendant contends that the court applied an erroneous standard of review. However, because this argument was not properly presented before the trial court, it will not be considered on appeal, and we affirm the convictions. See Rule 5A:18.

The parties are fully conversant with the record, and this memorandum opinion recites only those facts necessary to a disposition of the issues on appeal.

At the conclusion of an ore tenus hearing on the motion in issue, the trial judge referenced "a statute in Virginia regarding this type of situation, [Code §] 19.2-296," which provides that the "court can act in these matters to correct a manifest . . . injustice," and noted that the evidence did not "lead [him] to believe that action is necessary to correct a manifest of injustice." Defendant argues for the first time on appeal that these remarks indicate that the court erroneously applied the post-sentencing "standard of judicial scrutiny" to the motion and related evidence. See Code § 19.2-296.

It is well established that this Court will not consider on appeal an argument which was not presented to the trial court.Jacques v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 591, 593, 405 S.E.2d 630, 631 (1991). "No ruling of the trial court . . . will be considered as a basis for reversal unless the objection was stated together with the grounds therefor at the time of the ruling. . . ." Rule 5A:18.

Accordingly, we are unable to entertain defendant's argument and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Affirmed.