Judge Bellows accurately characterized the prevailing law in his memorandum decision, and it is clear that his refusal to recuse himself was not an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Grattan v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 602, 620, 685 S.E.2d 634, 644 (2009) (stating that a review for abuse of discretion “includes review to determine that the discretion was not guided by erroneous legal conclusions,” and finding no abuse of discretion where the trial judge's decision reflected proper application of governing legal principles). Prieto offered no evidence or even allegation of extrajudicial influence that would suggest bias.

“Only when reasonable jurists could not differ can we say an abuse of discretion has occurred.” Grattan v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 602, 620, 685 S.E.2d 634, 644 (2009) (quoting in parenthetical Thomas v. Commonwealth, 44 Va.App. 741, 753, 607 S.E.2d 738, 743 (2005)). That standard of review is applicable to decisions of trial courts as to the admissibility of evidence.

Rather, we consider only whether the record fairly supports [that] action.’ " Grattan v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 602, 620, 685 S.E.2d 634 (2009) (quoting Beck v. Commonwealth, 253 Va. 373, 385, 484 S.E.2d 898 (1997)). [12] Expert testimony must address issues beyond the "common experience of the jury."

A court abuses its discretion if the record does not support its action or its decision was based on erroneous legal conclusions. Grattan v. Commonwealth , 278 Va. 602, 620, 685 S.E.2d 634, 644 (2009). Under Code § 8.01–654, a habeas court may grant an evidentiary hearing, but subsection (B)(4) explicitly provides that it is not necessary if "the allegations of illegality of the petitioner's detention can be fully determined on the basis of recorded matters."

Carter v. Commonwealth, 293 Va. 537, 543 (2017) (second alteration in original) (quoting Grattan v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 602, 620 (2009)). This Court will find an abuse of discretion only when "reasonable jurists could not differ." Hicks v. Commonwealth, 71 Va.App. 255, 275 (2019) (quoting Campos v. Commonwealth, 67 Va.App. 690, 702 (2017)).

Commonwealth v. Swann, 290 Va. 194, 197 (2015) (quoting Grattan v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 602, 620 (2009)).

" Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Grattan v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 602, 620 (2009)). "Only when reasonable jurists could not differ can we say an abuse of discretion has occurred.

Rather, we consider only whether the record fairly supports the trial court's action." Grattan v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 602, 620 (2009) (quoting Beck v. Commonwealth, 253 Va. 373, 385 (1997)); see also

“Only when reasonable jurists could not differ can we say an abuse of discretion has occurred.” Turner v. Commonwealth, 65 Va. App. 312, 327, 777 S.E.2d 569 (2015) (quoting Grattan v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 602, 620, 685 S.E.2d 634 (2009)). 1. Code § 19.2-271.6 overrules Stamper’s prohibition on using mental-condition evidence to negate mens rea.

Rather, a reviewing court can conclude that "an abuse of discretion has occurred" only in cases in which "reasonable jurists could not differ" about the correct result. Commonwealth v. Swann , 290 Va. 194, 197, 776 S.E.2d 265 (2015) (quoting Grattan v. Commonwealth , 278 Va. 602, 620, 685 S.E.2d 634 (2009) ). "[E]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is generally not admissible to prove the character trait of a person in order to show that the person acted in conformity therewith."