Opinion
Record No. 1308-91-1
December 15, 1992
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK JEROME JAMES, JUDGE.
Sheila A. Drucker, for appellant.
Kathleen B. Martin, Assistant Attorney General (Mary Sue Terry, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Judges Baker, Barrow and Bray.
Argued at Norfolk, Virginia.
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated publication.
This appeal is from convictions of first degree murder and use of a firearm while committing a felony. The defendant, although sixteen years old at the time the offenses occurred, was tried as an adult. We hold that the circuit court had no jurisdiction because the record fails to show that the juvenile and domestic relations district court made the findings of fact required by statute before a juvenile may be transferred to the circuit court for trial as an adult. Further, we hold that the trial court improperly admitted evidence that a co-defendant had pleaded guilty to the same charge and was awaiting sentencing.
I. Jurisdiction
A juvenile and domestic relations court must make specific factual findings concerning a juvenile defendant before he or she may be transferred to the circuit court for trial as an adult. See Code § 16.1-269. If these findings are not made, the transfer order is void, and a circuit court lacks jurisdiction to try the juvenile as an adult. Matthews v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 358, 361, 218 S.E.2d 538, 541 (1975); Hairfield v. Commonwealth, 7 Va. App. 649, 652, 376 S.E.2d 796, 797 (1989);see also Bea v. Commonwealth, ___ Va. App. ___, ___, 420 S.E.2d 255, 257 (1992). The juvenile district court made some, but not all, of the required findings by checking some, but not all, of the boxes provided for this purpose on a form transfer order used by the juvenile and domestic relations district court. Therefore, the trial court had no jurisdiction to try the defendant for these charges, and we must reverse the convictions and remand the proceeding for a new trial.
II. Co-Defendant's Guilty Plea
At trial, a co-defendant was permitted, over objection, to testify that he had pleaded guilty to the same charges and was awaiting sentencing. The introduction into evidence of a guilty plea and sentencing of a co-defendant or an accomplice is error. Ward v. Commonwealth, 205 Va. 564, 573, 138 S.E.2d 293, 300 (1964); see also Brown v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 101, 103, 348 S.E.2d 408, 409-10 (1986). Furthermore, it is error to admit evidence of a co-defendant's guilty plea even if no evidence of his sentence is received. Lewis v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 80, 82, 175 S.E.2d 236, 237 (1970). Thus, the trial court in this case erred in allowing such evidence to be introduced.
The remaining issues raised in this appeal are not likely to recur upon retrial; therefore, we will not address them.
The convictions are, therefore, reversed and the proceedings are remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.