Opinion
Record No. 0445-12-4
11-27-2012
WILLIAM MICHAEL BERGER v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
(John Primeau; Law Offices of John Primeau, on brief), for appellant. Appellant submitting on brief. (Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, Attorney General; Aaron J. Campbell, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. Appellee submitting on brief.
UNPUBLISHED
Present: Judges Elder, Alston and Senior Judge Willis
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
JUDGE ROSSIE D. ALSTON, JR.
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAUQUIER COUNTY
Herman A. Whisenant, Jr., Judge Designate
(John Primeau; Law Offices of John Primeau, on brief), for
appellant. Appellant submitting on brief.
(Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, Attorney General; Aaron J. Campbell,
Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. Appellee
submitting on brief.
William Michael Berger (appellant) was convicted in the trial court of improper driving in violation of Code § 46.2-869. For the reason that follows, we dismiss this appeal.
In appellant's petition for appeal, he included a single assignment of error: "The trial court erred in finding the evidence presented sufficient to sustain the conviction of appellant." Rule 5A:12(c)(1)(ii) provides that "[a]n assignment of error . . . which merely states that the judgment or award is contrary to the law and the evidence is not sufficient" and that "[i]f the assignments of error are insufficient . . . , the petition for appeal shall be dismissed." See Davis v. Commonwealth, 282 Va. 339, 339-40, 717 S.E.2d 796, 796-97 (2011) (holding similar Rule 5:17 "establish[es] the inclusion of sufficient assignments of error is a mandatory procedural requirement and that the failure to comply with this requirement deprives this Court of its active jurisdiction to consider the appeal").
Appellant's assignment of error challenges, in general, the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. In accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in Davis, we conclude that appellant's assignment of error is insufficient under Rule 5A:12(c)(1)(ii), and thus deprives this Court of active jurisdiction over the appeal. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.
Dismissed.