From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Staton v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Virginia. Alexandria
Dec 18, 2001
37 Va. App. 238 (Va. Ct. App. 2001)

Opinion

Record No. 1903-00-1. Circuit Court No. CR00-684-01.

December 18, 2001.

(Michael Jerome Massie, Portsmouth; Holley Massie, P.C., on brief), for appellant. Eric Orlando Staton, Appellant submitting on brief.

Leah A. Darron, Assistant Attorney General (Randolph A. Beales, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Before FITZPATRICK, C.J., and BENTON, WILLIS, ELDER, BRAY, ANNUNZIATA, BUMGARDNER, HUMPHREYS, CLEMENTS and AGEE, JJ.


UPON A REHEARING EN BANC

By published opinion dated July 31, 2001, a divided panel of this Court affirmed the appellant's conviction. See Staton v. Commonwealth, 36 Va. App. 276, 549 S.E.2d 627 (2001). We stayed the mandate of that decision and granted rehearing en banc.

Upon a rehearing en banc, the stay of the July 31, 2001 mandate is lifted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with the majority panel opinion.

FITZPATRICK, C.J., and BENTON and ELDER, JJ., dissent for the reasons set forth in the panel dissent.

ORDER

It is ordered that the trial court allow counsel for the appellant an additional fee of $200 for services rendered the appellant on the rehearing portion of this appeal, in addition to counsel's costs and necessary direct out-of-pocket expenses. This amount shall be added to the costs due the Commonwealth in the July 31, 2001 mandate.

This order shall be published and certified to the trial court.


Summaries of

Staton v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Virginia. Alexandria
Dec 18, 2001
37 Va. App. 238 (Va. Ct. App. 2001)
Case details for

Staton v. Commonwealth

Case Details

Full title:ERIC ORLANDO STATON, APPELLANT, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, APPELLEE

Court:Court of Appeals of Virginia. Alexandria

Date published: Dec 18, 2001

Citations

37 Va. App. 238 (Va. Ct. App. 2001)
556 S.E.2d 67

Citing Cases

Wright v. Commonwealth

A defendant may constructively possess an item or items in his residence even when he is not on the premises.…

Swinea v. Commonwealth

Because the fact finder reasonably rejected Swinea's testimony, his explanation "must be interpreted . . . as…