Robinson v. Commonwealth

Full title: HAYWOOD C. ROBINSON v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia. Richmond

Date published: Oct 6, 1992

Record No. 0934-91-2 (Va. Ct. App. Oct. 6, 1992)

Opinion

Record No. 0934-91-2

October 6, 1992

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHARLES CITY COUNTY RUSSELL M. CARNEAL, JUDGE DESIGNATE.

Clay B. Blanton, for appellant.

Thomas C. Daniel, Assistant Attorney General (Mary Sue Terry, Attorney General; Robert B. Condon, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman, and Fitzpatrick.

Argued at Richmond, Virginia.

MEMORANDUM OPINION^_

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

JUDGE SAM W. COLEMAN III.

Haywood Robinson appeals his jury conviction of possessing a sawed-off shotgun in violation of Code § 18.2-300(B). Robinson argues that the definition of "sawed-off shotgun" under Code § 18.2-299(1) does not include a weapon that is inoperable by reason of the fact that it was missing a firing pin.

In the recent case, Rogers v. Commonwealth, ___ Va. App. ___, ___ n. 1, 418 S.E.2d 727, 728, n. 1 (1992), we held on almost identical facts that the absence of a firing pin in a weapon does not exempt it from the definition of "any weapon . . . from which a number of ball shot pellets or projectiles may be fired" as provided in Code § 18.2-299(1). In the Rogers case, as in this case, the weapon could readily be rendered operable by inserting a small nail or pin. We noted in the Rogers decision that a weapon that could become a completely operable sawed-off shotgun after a moment's delay to insert the firing pin or nail satisfied after a moment's delay to insert the firing pin or nail satisfied the statutory definition of a "weapon" which "may be fired" under Code § 18.2-299(1). Id. at ___, 418 S.E.2d at 729. To hold otherwise, we reasoned in Rogers, "would permit criminals to carry sawed-off shotguns in the first stage of disassembly, ready to be reassembled on a moment's notice." Id. at ___, 418 S.E.2d at 729. We further noted in the Rogers decision that, in any event, operating status of a weapon is irrelevant to the purpose of the Sawed-Off Shotgun Act, which is to protect the public not only from physical harm from sawed-off shotguns, but also from the fear and intimidation created by persons possessing and wielding such weapons. Id. at ___, 418 S.E.2d at 728.

Our recent decision in Rogers controls this appeal. We affirm Robinson's conviction for violating Code § 18.2-300.

Affirmed.