Opinion
Record No. 040726.
March 3, 2005.
Present: All the Justices
Soon after having sold cheese made from goats' milk to a member of the public at a local farmer's market, the defendant farm owner was charged with operating a food manufacturing plant without having been inspected by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, in violation of Code § 3.1-398.1. The general district court convicted defendant of this charge and imposed sentence pursuant to Code § 3.1-418. On appeal to the circuit court the conviction was upheld. The Court of Appeals affirmed defendant's conviction, rejecting arguments concerning whether the charges stated a criminal offense, as well as other jurisdictional and constitutional arguments raised for the first time on appeal. The present appeal was awarded on assignments of error limited to those points.
1. With respect to the assignments of error on this appeal, asserting that the charges against defendant failed to state a criminal offense, that the courts below lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and that a Fourth Amendment challenge to the statutory procedure can be raised for the first time on appeal, for the reasons stated in the Court of Appeals' opinion, Parker v. Commonwealth, 42 Va. App. 358, 592 S.E.2d 358 (2004), the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
Affirmed.
Norman Lamson for appellant.
Richard B. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General (Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Brenda Parker was convicted in the Circuit Court of Gloucester County for operating a food manufacturing plant that had not been inspected by the Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services. See Code § 3.1-398.1. We awarded her an appeal to consider her following assignments of error: 1. "The Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the charge was of an offense known to the law, and that the lower courts had subject matter jurisdiction." 2. "If the Court of Appeals did not err as specified in No. 1, then it erred in concluding that the claim that a summons of violating 3.1-418/3.1-398.1 on its face violates the Fourth Amendment does not address subject matter jurisdiction, and can be raised for the first time on appeal."
We have considered these assignments of error and for the reasons stated in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, Parker v. Commonwealth, 42 Va. App. 358, 592 S.E.2d 358 (2004), we will affirm the judgment appealed from.
Affirmed.